VIA posts RFQ for 42 long distance locomotives

Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 12:41 pm This is where it would really make sense to lease power from CN or CP and have a HEP baggage car. There are two long distance trains and five regional trains. None of them are known for speed. They certainly don't need a monocoque design. Alaska has done really well this way.

I kinda agree, if there is a HEP car, than standard power can be used from host railroad.

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 1:37 pm

Tadman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 12:41 pm This is where it would really make sense to lease power from CN or CP and have a HEP baggage car. There are two long distance trains and five regional trains. None of them are known for speed. They certainly don't need a monocoque design. Alaska has done really well this way.

I kinda agree, if there is a HEP car, than standard power can be used from host railroad.

The other passenger railroads doing so are still using their own paid and trained engineers, as in this case of Alaska RR in the photo above.
Will CN allow VIA trained and paid engineers operate and run their locomotives? Will VIA allow CN trained and paid crews run their passenger trains? Common sense suggests not.

Note also that Alaska railroad is not using "standard power", but is using specially equipped SD70s that carry HEP generators in the locomotive.

RandallW wrote:Note also that Alaska railroad is not using "standard power", but is using specially equipped SD70s that carry HEP generators in the locomotive.

Fact check: there's not a dedicated HEP generator on the ARR locomotives or the Metra SD70MACHs.

They're standard SD70s with the ability to switch one of the inverters from feeding the center axle traction motors over to provide HEP.

You're partially correct that's not a standard option, but the locomotives are equally qualified to haul freight in the standard configuration.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

Thank you for the correction. Critically though, the point stands that AAR has a fleet of specially equipped SD70MACs for use with passenger trains along with a fleet of SD70MACs that are freight only.

To be fair, that makes VIA assignments a drain on CP or CPKC power, which might not be agreeable.

My guess as to what they'll get? Likely something similar to the ALC-42. Nobody really has the option to manufacture bulk orders of passenger locomotives new except Siemens, GETS/Wabtec's proposal for a P42 replacement in the form of a stretched HSP46 got nowhere and I'm not sure if the MP36 could as easily be used for LD service. Plus economy of scale with the Corridor trainsets helps, commonality with Amtrak would help, and most teething troubles have been dealt with

ConstanceR46 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 3:05 pm To be fair, that makes VIA assignments a drain on CP or CPKC power, which might not be agreeable.

My guess as to what they'll get? Likely something similar to the ALC-42. Nobody really has the option to manufacture bulk orders of passenger locomotives new except Siemens, GETS/Wabtec's proposal for a P42 replacement in the form of a stretched HSP46 got nowhere and I'm not sure if the MP36 could as easily be used for LD service. Plus economy of scale with the Corridor trainsets helps, commonality with Amtrak would help, and most teething troubles have been dealt with

How about commonality to their own Siemens built SC-42 locomotives?
Just add larger fuel tanks to the already existing locomotive.

electricron wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 3:37 pm

ConstanceR46 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 3:05 pm To be fair, that makes VIA assignments a drain on CP or CPKC power, which might not be agreeable.

My guess as to what they'll get? Likely something similar to the ALC-42. Nobody really has the option to manufacture bulk orders of passenger locomotives new except Siemens, GETS/Wabtec's proposal for a P42 replacement in the form of a stretched HSP46 got nowhere and I'm not sure if the MP36 could as easily be used for LD service. Plus economy of scale with the Corridor trainsets helps, commonality with Amtrak would help, and most teething troubles have been dealt with

How about commonality to their own Siemens built SC-42 locomotives?
Just add larger fuel tanks to the already existing locomotive.

From the stats, the ALC-42 (Amtrak long distance) and SCV-42 (Via corridor) are the same locomotive, including fuel capacity and rated horsepower, except for the nose pieces.

I read the RFQ description. They are looking for new “passenger locomotives” along with a TSSSA. So they will not be buying freight units and HEP cars or rebuilds of old units. And another document of theirs indicated EPA tier 4 compliance. While there have been issues with Chargers, Siemens seems quite willing to stand by TSSSA agreements and has issued multiple software and hardware revisions to deal with “teething” on the ALC-42 - and those have significantly increased the mean miles between service interruptions - they still have work to do but they have shown improvement since the first year of operation.

Unless they are willing to accept a lower MAS and Progress Rail or Wabtec offers them a freight derived passenger variant of one of their tier 4 freight units Siemens seems the obvious choice. It would be nice to have Wabtec put out a true passenger unit to compete but they don’t seem interested. Progress Rail/EMD did make the F125 but it hasn’t sold well.

The fact this is a RFQ indicates they want to buy off-the-shelf and not get bogged down by customizations. If only Amtrak took that approach....

eolesen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 10:29 pm The fact this is a RFQ indicates they want to buy off-the-shelf and not get bogged down by customizations. If only Amtrak took that approach....

But VIA needs a reliable loco that will withstand the -40C winter temps in Alberta and adjacent areas but possible -45C. That winter requirement is going to require various customizations.

BTW flew into Calgary airport for couple weeks with temps at -40 and once at night -42.

I’m not really sure what big customizations there were with Amtrak’s Chargers other than a larger fuel tank and a modified nose section to perform better in grade crossing accidents. I would imagine if VIA ended up with a Charger variant they would also have these as well.

lordsigma12345 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 2:14 pm I’m not really sure what big customizations there were with Amtrak’s Chargers other than a larger fuel tank and a modified nose section to perform better in grade crossing accidents. I would imagine if VIA ended up with a Charger variant they would also have these as well.

The larger fuel tanks are necessary in case of a stalled train due to whatever to keep HEP heat on. Probably refueled before quantity down to half full?