MPI MP36 and Amtrak

[battalion51]

500 mile range? You gotta be friggin kidding me! The Silvers have about a 700 mile trip from WAS to JAX without refueling. And IIRC on the trip south to Miami they don't refuel at MIA. On an engines trip the fuel runs are WAS-JAX (fuel) JAX-MIA-JAX (fuel) JAX-WAS. I could be wrong though on that last count. Even Auto Train really doesn't need to fuel up on its trip from SFA-FLO-LOR, the fueling at FLO is just a top off for safety. Diesels should be burning 2-2.5 gallons per mile...

 

[Green Maned Lion]

500 mile range? You gotta be friggin kidding me! The Silvers have about a 700 mile trip from WAS to JAX without refueling. And IIRC on the trip south to Miami they don't refuel at MIA. On an engines trip the fuel runs are WAS-JAX (fuel) JAX-MIA-JAX (fuel) JAX-WAS. I could be wrong though on that last count. Even Auto Train really doesn't need to fuel up on its trip from SFA-FLO-LOR, the fueling at FLO is just a top off for safety. Diesels should be burning 2-2.5 gallons per mile...

I was talking minimum requirements.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

500 mile range? You gotta be friggin kidding me! The Silvers have about a 700 mile trip from WAS to JAX without refueling. And IIRC on the trip south to Miami they don't refuel at MIA. On an engines trip the fuel runs are WAS-JAX (fuel) JAX-MIA-JAX (fuel) JAX-WAS. I could be wrong though on that last count. Even Auto Train really doesn't need to fuel up on its trip from SFA-FLO-LOR, the fueling at FLO is just a top off for safety. Diesels should be burning 2-2.5 gallons per mile...

I was talking minimum requirements.

500 would be too minimum.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

500 mile range? You gotta be friggin kidding me! The Silvers have about a 700 mile trip from WAS to JAX without refueling. And IIRC on the trip south to Miami they don't refuel at MIA. On an engines trip the fuel runs are WAS-JAX (fuel) JAX-MIA-JAX (fuel) JAX-WAS. I could be wrong though on that last count. Even Auto Train really doesn't need to fuel up on its trip from SFA-FLO-LOR, the fueling at FLO is just a top off for safety. Diesels should be burning 2-2.5 gallons per mile...

I was talking minimum requirements.

500 would be too minimum.

The F40s couldn't even hit 500 out west.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

500 mile range? You gotta be friggin kidding me! The Silvers have about a 700 mile trip from WAS to JAX without refueling. And IIRC on the trip south to Miami they don't refuel at MIA. On an engines trip the fuel runs are WAS-JAX (fuel) JAX-MIA-JAX (fuel) JAX-WAS. I could be wrong though on that last count. Even Auto Train really doesn't need to fuel up on its trip from SFA-FLO-LOR, the fueling at FLO is just a top off for safety. Diesels should be burning 2-2.5 gallons per mile...

I was talking minimum requirements.

500 would be too minimum.

The F40s couldn't even hit 500 out west.

And that was insufficient.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

And that was insufficient.

I don't feel like getting into a "I'll have the last word" game with you, Micah.

 

[Ryan]

As of now, you're winning.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

First name basis?

You simply have to have a range of 700 miles, perhaps more. It is only logical that the minimum performance requirements of tomorrow be a step above the minimum requirements of today, and certainly not the requirements of yester-year. This is a given, and I don't even know why it is up for discussion since you yourself admit the F40s weren't meant for LD service. Why would you even think to use one of their old standards to set the bar?

 

[Mark]

In the book "GE Evolution Locomotives" by Sean Graham-White, he makes mention that GE has a concept locomotive, the NGPL or Next Generation Passenger Locomotive. It is only a brief mention but it does indicate that GE is at least thinking/planning on being the ones who design and build the next series of locomotives for what would most likely be Amtrak.

That being said, I'm sure that MPI would be capable of designing and building a locomotive to Amtrak's specs but I doubt that the current MP36 or 40 would meet Amtrak's needs. I agree with GML on the height issues and the need for a fleet that can function system-wide like the P42s.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

First name basis?
You simply have to have a range of 700 miles, perhaps more. It is only logical that the minimum performance requirements of tomorrow be a step above the minimum requirements of today, and certainly not the requirements of yester-year. This is a given, and I don't even know why it is up for discussion since you yourself admit the F40s weren't meant for LD service. Why would you even think to use one of their old standards to set the bar?

Sure.

I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was merely pointing out the reasons why the MP36/MP40 are not reasonable options for Amtrak's primary power. The longer the range, the better, keeping in mind the weight of several thousand gallons of diesel.

It MUST be able to hit 500 miles, running at an (excessive) consumption rate of 4 GPM, which is probably not all that far for a locomotive attempting to shove itself up a 4-5% grade. Better range is obviously a plus. But you must also consider some of the limitations affecting Amtrak's need to fit into Penn. The Genesis sinks the prime mover so that it rests in between the trucks the same way a Superliner sits part of its passenger cabin between its trucks. The problem with this is that the fuel tanks are usually stored in the location that now contains the prime mover.

That means that for the most part, as in the Genesis, the fuel tanks must be located aft, foreward, or astride the prime mover. Astride makes access difficult. Mounting it foreward or aft of the prime means that the fuel tank would be more highly located. A higher located fuel tank raises the center of gravity at full load and makes that center of gravity mobile. I.E., diesel fuel sloshes. Not as bad as water, but it does. The higher up the fuel tank, the more the fuel receives the forces of motion, the more the fuel sloshes, the more that center of gravity oscillates, and its a geometric progression. The more weight for the fuel, the more weight is sloshing around.

In other words, the more fuel an engine with a sunken prime carries above its trucks, the higher that fuel sits, the more the center of gravity oscillates, the more likely the engine is to derail at speed or on bad tracks. And Amtrak doesn't need another SDP40F.

 

[Neil_M]

That means that for the most part, as in the Genesis, the fuel tanks must be located aft, foreward, or astride the prime mover. Astride makes access difficult. Mounting it foreward or aft of the prime means that the fuel tank would be more highly located. A higher located fuel tank raises the center of gravity at full load and makes that center of gravity mobile. I.E., diesel fuel sloshes. Not as bad as water, but it does. The higher up the fuel tank, the more the fuel receives the forces of motion, the more the fuel sloshes, the more that center of gravity oscillates, and its a geometric progression. The more weight for the fuel, the more weight is sloshing around.
In other words, the more fuel an engine with a sunken prime carries above its trucks, the higher that fuel sits, the more the center of gravity oscillates, the more likely the engine is to derail at speed or on bad tracks. And Amtrak doesn't need another SDP40F.

Never heard of fuel tank baffles? Obviously not.

 

[SunsetLimited01]

Is it possible Amtrak just might try six axle engines again? I have doubts that would happen, but if it does all I would have to say for that is OMG! :blink:

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Is it possible Amtrak just might try six axle engines again? I have doubts that would happen, but if it does all I would have to say for that is OMG! :blink:

Somebody at the top indicated to me that this was under consideration but not likely. If they ended up going the F40 route and making standard road engines into Amtrak's next mainline diesel, then it might happen, since both GEs and EMD use 6-axle trucks in their main line motors.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

maybe go with 5 axels instead. 3 in the back 2 in front. i've seen some passenger locos like that.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

maybe go with 5 axels instead. 3 in the back 2 in front. i've seen some passenger locos like that.

6 axle locomotives again would be track killers and would restrict locomotives to certain routes.

the chances of 6 axle locomotives in passenger service in US are zero to nill, even Europeans are backing away from 6 axle power other than freight.

as for 5 axle locomotives they were cool to carry the huge water tank needed for steam generator but since the one odd axle had no propulsion it was more of hinderance than a benefit.

 

[battalion51]

Last time I checked the P-42's do use mainline Engines, the highly popular GE 7FDL. That motor was used in the DASH 7, DASH 8, DASH 9, and Genesis series before being discontinued when the GEVO engine was introduced. I don't think it gets much more mainline than that...

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Last time I checked the P-42's do use mainline Engines, the highly popular GE 7FDL. That motor was used in the DASH 7, DASH 8, DASH 9, and Genesis series before being discontinued when the GEVO engine was introduced. I don't think it gets much more mainline than that...

Amtrak's mainline motors, what they use on their system. As oposed to the F59PHis they have that are restricted to certain areas, for instance.

 

[AlanB]

I know GE and Amtrak are tied together at the hip with the Genesis locomotives for the forseeable future. But has Amtrak looked a the the Motive Power Industries MP36? Alot of transit services use this locomotive. Ever since EMD stopped making the locomotive that the Surfliner uses,MPI has stepped up to the plate. The MP36 seems to be the F40 successor......at least for the transit authorities.

Well in an almost timely fashion, it would appear that Amtrak might not be looking at anything from Motive Power at all.

GE Transportation in Erie and Amtrak are lobbying Congress to fund 54 locomotives that the government-subsidized rail company says it needs to replace outdated engines.

A few additional details, although not many, can be found in this newstory from Philly.com.

 

[jis]

It is interesting that GE thinks it is actually ready to build 124 or 200mph locomotives based on just signing an MOU with the Chinese Railways. Sounds more like a boondoggle to try to swallow some money from the stimulus to me. :unsure:

Or alternatively this could be a deal like EMD had with ASEA for the manufacturing of the AEM-7s, except in this case the design and technology will come from China possible based on original stuff from the likes of either some Japanese or European company.

 

[orulz]

Lastly, the MP36 is highly compromised by its design which is intended to be built generically in relatively small numbers. Amtrak has specialized requirements, and also has a diesel fleet of some 250+ locomotives, as opposed to the individual commuter roads which have few locomotives.
Keep in mind that none of the three big commuter roads use the MP36- NJT, LIRR, Metro-North. NJT has some old F40s and Geeps, plus their 33 Alstom PL42s, which are European in design and unique to NJT, with the rest of them scheduled to be replaced by Bombardier ALP-45DP Electro-diesel dual modes. LIRR uses DE30s and DM30s, both EMD and of unique design to that road (and are admittedly junk). Metro-North uses Genesis locomotives, both P32ACDMs and P40s bought from Amtrak. They also have a few F units around. They technically own a few F40s and Geeps, but those are used by NJ Transit.

Last I checked, when it comes to commuter rail ridership in the US, it's actually the big 4 agencies, with Metra coming in 2nd place:

1 Long Island Rail Road 347,600

2 Metra 311,900

3 Metro-North 278,700

4 NJT 276,000

Metra owns quite a few MPI's already and chances are that they will acquire more as the rest of their fleet is gradually retired. They had some issues with reliability shortly after delivery but it seems they are mostly resolved now.

That is not to say that Amtrak will necessarily want to acquire any MPI locomotives, and I agree that current MPIs would not meet Amtrak's needs, but MPI does seem perfectly capable of handling large orders for large agencies.

 

[transit54]

I know GE and Amtrak are tied together at the hip with the Genesis locomotives for the forseeable future. But has Amtrak looked a the the Motive Power Industries MP36? Alot of transit services use this locomotive. Ever since EMD stopped making the locomotive that the Surfliner uses,MPI has stepped up to the plate. The MP36 seems to be the F40 successor......at least for the transit authorities.

Well in an almost timely fashion, it would appear that Amtrak might not be looking at anything from Motive Power at all.

GE Transportation in Erie and Amtrak are lobbying Congress to fund 54 locomotives that the government-subsidized rail company says it needs to replace outdated engines.

A few additional details, although not many, can be found in this newstory from Philly.com.

What would Amtrak need these for? IIRC, they are pretty much set as far as their levels of P42s. Would these be to replace aging P42s, or something else? Maybe P32DCs?

 

[amtrakwolverine]

maybe its the electric motors that amtrak needs to replace the AEM-7.

 

[battalion51]

It's painfully obvious to me they're talking about electrics. The speeds they're talking about, and the quantity point right to electrics. Amtrak doesn't need new diesels right now, not as long as there are P-40s sitting serviceable in Delaware.

 

[MattW]

Or perhaps they'll be dual mode so they A. won't have to mess with an engine change at WAS at least for Regionals, and B. can free up true diesels for expanded service elsewhere.

 

[cpamtfan]

It's painfully obvious to me they're talking about electrics. The speeds they're talking about, and the quantity point right to electrics. Amtrak doesn't need new diesels right now, not as long as there are P-40s sitting serviceable in Delaware.

P40s are in BG for rebuild AO now.