ACS-64 Heads Up

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

Acela150

Conductor
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
8,753
According to a post on Trainorders, the 3 ACS-64 units will move east on the CZ Wednesday, and south from Sacramento to Oakland today (Tuesday). It was also mentioned on TO that the three units will be on their way to Pueblo and that one unit will be sent to Wilmington via the SWC and CL to DC, and a work train will haul it north to the shops.

I am not sure if this is true. I'm just saying what I've read.

Good Luck!

Steve
 
X

X

Guest
600 left Sacramento and arrived in Oakland this afternoon sandwiched between two P42s and all wrapped up in blue, it's going out as the third unit on #6 tomorrow morning.
 
X

X

Guest
You're welcome.

The move got delayed, looks like Friday now, maybe.
 

Ryan

Conductor
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
17,017
Thanks again! This is the unit coming to Wilmington, right?

Leaving there Friday puts it in Chicago Sunday, meaning it'll arrive in WAS either Monday (good, since I'm off) or Tuesday (less good)?
 

NE933

Conductor
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,066
Ryan: I'd get you one for Christmas, but my funds are tied up in four of the original Metroliner cars that I'm planning to run. The ones with the roof humps and ultra large 'Amtrak' on the front; now there's a paint scheme with balls.

:)

And yes, please let me join in saying thanks, to all the AU members who post info like this, and those who make for lively, non-attacking discussions!
 

Acela150

Conductor
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
8,753
So one of my Railfan Friends from the area is in Denver for the ERA convention. Keep in mind that this guy has some extreme good luck. To the point where one day I'm sure he'll win the PowerBall or Mega Millions. So with that being said, here is 600 being transported to TTCI. For those loathing the logos on the side you'll be pleased by these photos.

http://chuchubob.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3491709

http://chuchubob.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3491710

http://chuchubob.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3491712

http://chuchubob.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3491713

http://chuchubob.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3491714

I'm working on finding more info/photos. He did mention in an e-mail that it was sent to TTCI.
 

Ryan

Conductor
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
17,017
Stupid work. I doubt that it comes up the corridor before dark. Maybe I'll hang out over at the train station all evening and hope to get lucky.
 

Acela150

Conductor
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
8,753
If 30 is OT then that's about a Noon arrival. I would say a special move after dark. Most likely after midnight.
 

gmushial

OBS Chief
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
852
600 left Sacramento and arrived in Oakland this afternoon sandwiched between two P42s and all wrapped up in blue, it's going out as the third unit on #6 tomorrow morning.
When an ACS-64 is sandwiched as such, can it be an active loco, ie, it's an electric loco which nominally gets its power form overhead, but can it be connected to the P42s to get it's power, ie, what the P42s generate for their motor needs is compatible with what the ACS-64 needs for it's, or is it simply a 200 ton deadweight btwn them?

The regen braking I assume is only viable for electrified lines, ie, if one doesn't have a overhead line to dump the power back into then there is no point to do regen braking, right?
 

Ryan

Conductor
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
17,017
or is it simply a 200 ton deadweight btwn them?
This.

There are no provisions for transferring traction power to/from either the P42 or ACS-64 (with the exception of the pantograph on the ACS-64), nor is there really any reason to do so (all of the power generated by the P42's prime mover can be put to work using the traction motors on that unit.
 

Fan Railer

OBS Chief
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
871
600 left Sacramento and arrived in Oakland this afternoon sandwiched between two P42s and all wrapped up in blue, it's going out as the third unit on #6 tomorrow morning.
When an ACS-64 is sandwiched as such, can it be an active loco, ie, it's an electric loco which nominally gets its power form overhead, but can it be connected to the P42s to get it's power, ie, what the P42s generate for their motor needs is compatible with what the ACS-64 needs for it's, or is it simply a 200 ton deadweight btwn them?

The regen braking I assume is only viable for electrified lines, ie, if one doesn't have a overhead line to dump the power back into then there is no point to do regen braking, right?
Theoretically, it is possible to reroute the regen to HEP, but that requires too much setup and may be a liability along the way. Also, since the P42s don't have that capability to reroute dynamics to HEP, you may run into an overload issue. In short, why change / fix what isn't broken?
 

gmushial

OBS Chief
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
852
or is it simply a 200 ton deadweight btwn them?
This.

There are no provisions for transferring traction power to/from either the P42 or ACS-64 (with the exception of the pantograph on the ACS-64), nor is there really any reason to do so (all of the power generated by the P42's prime mover can be put to work using the traction motors on that unit.
Always very knowledgeable replies - thank you.

What I was thinking is that the P42s are capable of generating enough power to drive the motors at run-8 (appropriate term??), but suspect that running along most of the time are not using anywhere near that much, that the P42(s) could gen the electricity, and then share the drive across more weight (thinking that fewer drive wheels working harder cause more wear on the rails than more driving less so), ie, the power required to propel a train at a certain velocity is more or less independent of the number of motors doing such (plus or minus).

Related: I assume the positioning btwn the P42s is a question of load dynamics, ie, don't want it at the far end of the train in that such a load would always be trying to pull the intervening cars off the rails in sharp corners, likewise, in braking would be trying to overrun the rest of the train. Correct (plus/minus)?
 

gmushial

OBS Chief
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
852
600 left Sacramento and arrived in Oakland this afternoon sandwiched between two P42s and all wrapped up in blue, it's going out as the third unit on #6 tomorrow morning.
When an ACS-64 is sandwiched as such, can it be an active loco, ie, it's an electric loco which nominally gets its power form overhead, but can it be connected to the P42s to get it's power, ie, what the P42s generate for their motor needs is compatible with what the ACS-64 needs for it's, or is it simply a 200 ton deadweight btwn them?

The regen braking I assume is only viable for electrified lines, ie, if one doesn't have a overhead line to dump the power back into then there is no point to do regen braking, right?
Theoretically, it is possible to reroute the regen to HEP, but that requires too much setup and may be a liability along the way. Also, since the P42s don't have that capability to reroute dynamics to HEP, you may run into an overload issue. In short, why change / fix what isn't broken?
Being from New England, very much respect the "if it ain't broke you can't fix it" point of view :) HEP? And this would be in the context of no overhead power?

Related: yesteryear - long ago - there was one engine, a tender, and the rest of the train. Over time reality has evolved to multiple engines. The interconnecting of them, has it evolved overtime likewise, or is it lagging - per your comment of "too much setup"? For newer engines like the ACS-64, has the controlling of multiple engines from a single location (maybe even a non-engine) location been thought out and simplified, as in, this is today's reality, let's make it easy to implement such?

many thanks for the reply - greg
 

PerRock

Conductor
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
1,865
I thought the positioning was FRA regulations, as the engine hasn't been certified yet it has to have a certified car on both ends of it. And it makes more sense to stick an engine in the middle of an existing rake of engines rather then at the rear & shipping out an additional car for protection.

The older Cascades don't meet FRA standards and run under a waiver that requires them to have an certified car on both ends.

peter
 

Ryan

Conductor
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
17,017
Related: yesteryear - long ago - there was one engine, a tender, and the rest of the train. Over time reality has evolved to multiple engines. The interconnecting of them, has it evolved overtime likewise, or is it lagging - per your comment of "too much setup"? For newer engines like the ACS-64, has the controlling of multiple engines from a single location (maybe even a non-engine) location been thought out and simplified, as in, this is today's reality, let's make it easy to implement such?many thanks for the reply - greg
Train control (which is a completely different issue than passing traction power between cars) is a solved problem. All of Amtrak's road locomotives are set up to control other locomotives or be controlled by other locomotives or non-locomotive cars outfitted with a cab and controls.
 

gmushial

OBS Chief
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
852
Peter - thanks for the reply. I'm still a noob at this... hadn't considered FRA regs... but yes, makes sense.
 
2
Top