Amtrak Siemens Charger locomotive (SC44, ALC42, ALC42E) (2015 - 1Q 2024)

Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
fulham said:
With these new Chargers coming on-line, Amtrak should have an additional 33 P-42's available in Chicago (who knows what shape they are in), but what about the Amtrak engines in California and Washington state? CalTrans has 20 Chargers on order and WasDOT has 8. Will this free up an additional 28 Amtrak engines for LD service? I know both CalTrans and WasDOT have some of there own engines, will any of these be retired or are they looking at the Chargers as a way to get rid of any P42's they are leasing from Amtrak?
Click to expand...
The Charger order of 33 locomotives for the Midwest is significantly more than the IL, MI, MO corridors are currently using. Don't know exactly how many P-42s might be freed up in the Midwest for use elsewhere, but it is not 33 of them. The additional locomotives will be available for expanded service frequencies and probably will be used on the 110 mph corridors to put 2 locomotives on each trainset for better acceleration.

As discussed earlier in this thread, the locomotives that will be freed up in California are F-59PHIs. With the Chargers becoming the main locomotive for the Midwest and West coast corridor services, if Amtrak decides to keep their F-59PHIs, might see them get moved east for use on some of the eastern corridor services. Probably won't be enough Chargers in revenue service until late 2017 or 2018 for the F-59s to start getting freed up.
 
PRR 60 said:
jis said:
Dutchrailnut said:
Correct on first unit being a IDOT unit , not Caltrans, in link it has deliveries schedule after two units go to Pueblo.
Click to expand...
Which link? Thanks.
Click to expand...
NGEC Slideshow, Slide 2
Click to expand...
Thanks.
So I suppose by May 2017 or so they will also sneak in some of the initial 10 AAF units too, if AAF is to start service in second half of 2017.

afigg said:
As discussed earlier in this thread, the locomotives that will be freed up in California are F-59PHIs. With the Chargers becoming the main locomotive for the Midwest and West coast corridor services, if Amtrak decides to keep their F-59PHIs, might see them get moved east for use on some of the eastern corridor services. Probably won't be enough Chargers in revenue service until late 2017 or 2018 for the F-59s to start getting freed up.
Click to expand...
Maybe Virginia will see a bunch of F59PHIs
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MARC is getting Chargers to replace its electric locomotives. There are 10 electric locos on MARC's roster, but it's only getting 8 Chargers. Why would 8 Chargers be enough to replace those 10 locos? If it were 10 or more Chargers, that'd definitely be a different story.
 
The Chargers will be used in conjunction with the Motive power built locomotives therefore the maintenance spares can come from the existing pool of locomotives.
 
It sounds like Amtrak has quite a while to exercise its options on the Charger order... but hopefully Amtrak will shake up money to do so sometime in 2017, to keep the production line going and alleviate the pending shortage of P42s.
 
neroden said:
It sounds like Amtrak has quite a while to exercise its options on the Charger order... but hopefully Amtrak will shake up money to do so sometime in 2017, to keep the production line going and alleviate the pending shortage of P42s.
Click to expand...
Maybe if they go back to leasing rather than buying outright, this would circumvent the challange of rasing cash upfront. I believe Siemens actually owns a loco leasing business so that shouldn't be a problem. I know in the long run leasing is far more coytl than buying, but difficult times can call for extraordinary measures.
 
Caesar La Rock said:
They look nice and seeing a return to strobes makes things interesting. Speaking of strobes, I wonder why Amtrak removed the strobes on the P40s?
Click to expand...
That's a good question. I've been wondering the same thing myself.

I do know for one thing, people complain of dizziness from them. Sometimes, people have even had seizures from them. It's strange, but true.
 
In the renderings, why the heck does the CalTrans loco have a sloped fin on the back of its roof but the others don't?
 
Maybe they asked for it.

The strobes on school buses don't cause seizures, so why would the strobes on a locomotive if they had a similar frequency?
 
CSXfoamer1997 said:
In the renderings, why the heck does the CalTrans loco have a sloped fin on the back of its roof but the others don't?
Click to expand...
It transitions the visual profile from the locomotive to the high-level California Cars, prevents locomotive exhaust from blowing against and through the front door of the first passenger car, and reduces wind drag. Since some of the other states will also be pulling high level cars (eventually), I have no idea why they don't have a similar feature. Perhaps it's something that can be easily retrofitted in the future.
 
CSXfoamer1997 said:
In the renderings, why the heck does the CalTrans loco have a sloped fin on the back of its roof but the others don't?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing the artist made a coloring error and that's really the front of the first car.

Another detail that surprises me is that the coolant grilles seem to be missing off the side of the Brightline variant.
 
CSXfoamer1997 said:
In the renderings, why the heck does the CalTrans loco have a sloped fin on the back of its roof but the others don't?
Click to expand...
The California locos will always operate with 16" tall cars. Such is not the case for the others perhaps, though I suspect that at least the IDOT ones will mostly do so too. But if they have a significant chance of operating with single level cars too it probably does not make sense to put that structure on the roof.

Clearly MARC will not need it since half their passenger car fleet is only 14'6" tall.

And of course AAF won't need it because the AAF engines are of more or less the same shape as the Viaggio cars. I do wonder if the actual monocoque body of the AAF units will be a different cross section and design than the State units. The Viaggio sets that operate in Austria do not have dedicated engines. But Siemens does advertize integrated consists of Viaggio plus engine and possibly cab cars that look very integrated. It would be interesting to see how closely integrated the engines are with the cars in the Viaggio consists. This slideset has very little on it beyond just a mention of it on slide 4 with a stock marketing picture that has been used in all AAF literature.

So it talks of six customers on slide 3. I presume the six customers are Illinois, Missouri, Michigan, California, Washington and Maryland?

I guess within the next three years only the Maryland and AAF units will see actual 125mph operation.
 
Has MD said anything about 125 mph operation?

After the MP-36's never got certified over 90, my hopes were set pretty low.

Edit: in an attempt to answer my own question, I started reading old MARC Riders Advisory Council meeting minutes and found that they did test and approve the MP-36s for 100 MPH back in 2013.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought Oregon was the other state in the multi-state procurement. They do now own 2 Talgo sets, so it would make sense for them to get Chargers to go with the sets.

peter
 
Strobing light is only a problem at certain frequencies, so if these known frequencies are avoided, there will be no problems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top