MPI MP36 and Amtrak

[frequentflyer]

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.

 

[MattW]

The MP36 is a good locomotive, but I believe the problem is they're too tall. The brochure says 15' 6" for height, the P42s are 14' 8" tall and I believe the F59PHI (Sufliner type) is 15' 11" tall. The Superliner cars at 16' 2" tall can't fit into Penn station so I'm not sure if the MP36s or a possible dual-mode derivative could fit either. They are a very pretty good looking locomotive. In fact, someone produced an MP36 Amtrak repaint for MSTS and I put it on the head end of a Capitol Limted at WAS and it didn't look bad at all!

[EDIT] Yea, KLW TrainSim has the locomotive repaint on their site. Google them, Addons->KLW Based Reskins and it's right there up top.

 

[jis]

The MP36 is a good locomotive, but I believe the problem is they're too tall. The brochure says 15' 6" for height, the P42s are 14' 8" tall and I believe the F59PHI (Sufliner type) is 15' 11" tall.

P42s are nominally 14' 6" tall. 14' 8" would be a bit too tall for the North and East River tunnels in New York. 14' 6" is the max that can safely get into Penn Station. The NJT and LIRR Multi Level cars are 14' 6" tall too.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

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.

Amtrak, for their main locomotive fleet, needs something that can fit into Penn, as mentioned. But also, the MP36 is a fairly weak loco- 3600 hp. It also has limited range. None of these things matter on a commuter engine, but for Amtrak's needs, they are all deal breakers.

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.

Amtrak, NJTransit, LIRR and Metro North have something in common- they are all huge. When they buy power, they can afford to amortize the cost of an engine best suited to their needs, even if its a clean sheet design.

Really, when you get down to it, the MP36's main advantage is its low price.

 

[BlakeTyner]

Amtrak, for their main locomotive fleet, needs something that can fit into Penn, as mentioned. But also, the MP36 is a fairly weak loco- 3600 hp. It also has limited range. None of these things matter on a commuter engine, but for Amtrak's needs, they are all deal breakers.
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.

Amtrak, NJTransit, LIRR and Metro North have something in common- they are all huge. When they buy power, they can afford to amortize the cost of an engine best suited to their needs, even if its a clean sheet design.

Really, when you get down to it, the MP36's main advantage is its low price.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I can't cite my source (other than my memory) but the F40PH's weren't really the ideal locomotive for the whole Amtrak fleet, were they? You mention the range of the MP36, which I assume is dictated by fuel capacity, which jogged my memory about the F40's. IIRC, they were short-legged, too, having been designed, essentially, for commuter/corridor service. Amtrak's debacle with the SDP40F, and the subsequent banning of that loco on certain railroads, sort of forced Amtrak into using the F40's fleetwide.

Now, they served well, don't get me wrong...but the F40PH wasn't the first choice for long distance.

Does the MP draw hotel power from the prime mover or a pony engine? If the former, that would cut what...600 horsepower from the rating?

 

[amtrakwolverine]

Amtrak, for their main locomotive fleet, needs something that can fit into Penn, as mentioned. But also, the MP36 is a fairly weak loco- 3600 hp. It also has limited range. None of these things matter on a commuter engine, but for Amtrak's needs, they are all deal breakers.
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.

Amtrak, NJTransit, LIRR and Metro North have something in common- they are all huge. When they buy power, they can afford to amortize the cost of an engine best suited to their needs, even if its a clean sheet design.

Really, when you get down to it, the MP36's main advantage is its low price.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I can't cite my source (other than my memory) but the F40PH's weren't really the ideal locomotive for the whole Amtrak fleet, were they? You mention the range of the MP36, which I assume is dictated by fuel capacity, which jogged my memory about the F40's. IIRC, they were short-legged, too, having been designed, essentially, for commuter/corridor service. Amtrak's debacle with the SDP40F, and the subsequent banning of that loco on certain railroads, sort of forced Amtrak into using the F40's fleetwide.

Now, they served well, don't get me wrong...but the F40PH wasn't the first choice for long distance.

Does the MP draw hotel power from the prime mover or a pony engine? If the former, that would cut what...600 horsepower from the rating?

the Mp can either draw hotel power from the prime mover or a 2nd engine. it depends on the model the mp36ph-3c and MP40ph-3c all have a 2nd engine to drive hotel power. the mp36ph-3s draws hotel power from the main engine.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I can't cite my source (other than my memory) but the F40PH's weren't really the ideal locomotive for the whole Amtrak fleet, were they? You mention the range of the MP36, which I assume is dictated by fuel capacity, which jogged my memory about the F40's. IIRC, they were short-legged, too, having been designed, essentially, for commuter/corridor service. Amtrak's debacle with the SDP40F, and the subsequent banning of that loco on certain railroads, sort of forced Amtrak into using the F40's fleetwide.
Now, they served well, don't get me wrong...but the F40PH wasn't the first choice for long distance.

Does the MP draw hotel power from the prime mover or a pony engine? If the former, that would cut what...600 horsepower from the rating?

You're correct. Actually, their problems with 6-axle trucks on all three engines ordered with it (SDP40F, P30CH, and E60) made them eschew the design entirely- generally considered superior for passenger engines up to this point.

You are also correct that the F40s were designed more for short-distance service, derived as they were from road-switchers (its basically a Geep with a cowl). Contrariwise, the P42s are much more long-distance oriented, but is also a decent short-distance locomotive.

One of the biggest ironies is that we now know the SDP40F was actually a good road engine. Its problem was the high-mounted water tank and steam generator causing instability on bad track. With the tank removed, ATSF used them to good effect on the Super-C. Of course, both engines were highly compromised by their intention to be easily convertible for freight service, the SDP40F more so. Nobody thought Amtrak would last long. By the time the Genesis came around, it became fairly obvious Amtrak was gonna be around a while.

A few MP36s use pony engines, but most of them draw it off the prime. The pony is an option.

 

[BlakeTyner]

You're correct. Actually, their problems with 6-axle trucks on all three engines ordered with it (SDP40F, P30CH, and E60) made them eschew the design entirely- generally considered superior for passenger engines up to this point.
You are also correct that the F40s were designed more for short-distance service, derived as they were from road-switchers (its basically a Geep with a cowl). Contrariwise, the P42s are much more long-distance oriented, but is also a decent short-distance locomotive.

One of the biggest ironies is that we now know the SDP40F was actually a good road engine. Its problem was the high-mounted water tank and steam generator causing instability on bad track. With the tank removed, ATSF used them to good effect on the Super-C. Of course, both engines were highly compromised by their intention to be easily convertible for freight service, the SDP40F more so. Nobody thought Amtrak would last long. By the time the Genesis came around, it became fairly obvious Amtrak was gonna be around a while.

A few MP36s use pony engines, but most of them draw it off the prime. The pony is an option.

Yes, the SDP40F lasted quite a while on the ATSF. I don't think I ever saw one in service--I was born in '81 and by the time of the Eagle derailment in Woodlawn (2 miles from my house) in November of '83, the train was running with F40's. However, I've always had something of a soft spot for that engine, because when I was very young (before I had my own subscriptions to any magazines) I'd scavenge old issues of Trains and Model Railroader from yard sales, train shows, etc. One of the very first Model Railroader issues I got had a pretty long, detailed article about kitbashing an SDP40F. The article included photos of the real thing in service, and it just seemed like a mighty locomotive, big and brawny. Others will disagree, but I even thought they looked good in bloody nose paint, though the few that got cigar bands did 'fit' better with their trains.

I started riding the Texas Eagle right about the time, maybe a year prior to, the Pepsi Cans being delivered. I remember in Chicago how loud it was when you'd walk to the front of the train with the F40's screaming all around, and how amazed I was at the relative quietness of the GE's. (Incidentally, whoever decided to trash the Pepsi Can paint scheme should be strung up...those Dash 8's looked terrible in Phase IV and look almost as bad in Phase V.)

Vis-a-vis the Genesis, I can remember when the locomotive debuted in Trains Magazine, back when it was the AMD103. Again, others will disagree, but I find the Genesis to be very aesthetically pleasing--the early P40's even more so, due to their flush, front-mounted strobe lights and "tearing through the ribbon" stripe fade toward the rear. They're so ubiquitous now that lots of railfans just aren't enthralled with them anymore, but I'm partial to them. That distinctive GE chug, the "whoop" and shimmy when the air compressor kicks in...those things just add to the overall experience of passenger train travel.

~Blake

 

[cpamtfan]

MN no longer uses the F10s or FL9s, they now use Brookville BL20s. But I do agree that the MP36s aren't what Amtrak needs, they need a specifically designed locomotive to fit their needs.

 

[VT Hokie]

The MP36 is a very heavy locomotive (the heaviest 4 axle diesel out there, as I recall.) And as mentioned, at 3600 hp, it's not a high horsepower diesel. GO Transit does operate a 4000 hp version, but nonetheless, GE manages to get 4200 hp out of the 128 ton Genesis while the 150 ton MPI locomotive doesn't even match that hp. I suspect that high speed stability and ride quality are superior on the GE locos.

We'll see how MARC's MP36's do in 100 mph NEC service...

 

[battalion51]

The only application where the MP36's would be somewhat logical would be in California service or Hiawatha service. As far as a national application is concerned it's not a logical choice at all. Regardless, the P-42 fleet should still have another 10 years or so of life left in them.

 

[Ryan]

We'll see how MARC's MP36's do in 100 mph NEC service...

That's assuming they ever get in service.

Regardless, the P-42 fleet should still have another 10 years or so of life left in them.

Which is why now Amtrak should at least start thinking about what comes next - by the time requirements are written, money is found, units are ordered and delivered and tested, it'll be about time to start retiring them before they start falling apart.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Regardless, the P-42 fleet should still have another 10 years or so of life left in them.

Which is why now Amtrak should at least start thinking about what comes next - by the time requirements are written, money is found, units are ordered and delivered and tested, it'll be about time to start retiring them before they start falling apart.

Well what would you say works, what is your bullet-list of basic requirements for the P42's replacement?

 

[BlakeTyner]

Well what would you say works, what is your bullet-list of basic requirements for the P42's replacement?

I'm curious about this, too, so long as we're spitballing.

What disadvantage would there be in keeping the Genesis design but updating the guts? Give it a GEVO prime mover and whatever the current generation of electronics happens to be, but keep the monoque body (possibly with stock bolty noses) and everything else to save on design costs. That's assuming, of course, that GE would be willing to ramp up the assembly line for another order of P42's (P44's?) -- but aren't they producing some passenger units for overseas? Can't recall.

I guess at the end of the day what I'm asking is: will the situation in a few years warrant a new, ground-up design for a long-distance Amtrak locomotive? At the time the F40's were wearing out, the answer was absolutely yes. Now? Other than emissions requirements and slightly improved on-board circuitry, I'm wondering if we're dealing with a design that ain't broke.

~Blake

 

[battalion51]

I would argue that any new design should have a separate engine for HEP generation. If you were to throw GEVO guts in there that would be feasible because it runs on a 12 cylinder block, where as the current DASH 9 motor that's in there is a 16 cylinder block. Thus, smaller engine, more room for an HEP motor. I think a lot of the issue isn't so much the skin of the engine as it is the components that you rely on day in and day out.

 

[MattW]

If it wasn't for those dang New York tunnels, I'd say to heck with the P42 design, just toss a HEP engine in the GEVO body and use the same assembly line. The DASH-8s you see running around occasionally look pretty dang good IMHO especially in the Phase V paint. Only problem will be the NIMBYs and them looking like "freight" engines.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

If it wasn't for those dang New York tunnels, I'd say to heck with the P42 design, just toss a HEP engine in the GEVO body and use the same assembly line. The DASH-8s you see running around occasionally look pretty dang good IMHO especially in the Phase V paint. Only problem will be the NIMBYs and them looking like "freight" engines.

I don't know about the Dash 8 series, but I know the Dash 9-44CWL can only do 65mph (73 possible).

 

[Shotgun7]

If it wasn't for those dang New York tunnels, I'd say to heck with the P42 design, just toss a HEP engine in the GEVO body and use the same assembly line. The DASH-8s you see running around occasionally look pretty dang good IMHO especially in the Phase V paint. Only problem will be the NIMBYs and them looking like "freight" engines.

I don't know about the Dash 8 series, but I know the Dash 9-44CWL can only do 65mph (73 possible).

That's only because they're geared for lower speeds. As freight engines, the computers and gears are placed at settings allowing for high-powered, slow freight movements. Make some minor modifications to them both, and you can easily gear it for high speed passenger hauling capability. The Genesis Series' mechanical closeness to Dash 8's and Dash 9's is a testament to this flexibility.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

I'm not doubting the mechanical similarities, but you can't argue that some minor tweaks and a Dash 9 can replace a P42 in most respects, and I still don't think "minor modifications" would get a Dash 9 up to 103mph, much less the 110mph needed to be an improvement over the P42.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I'm not doubting the mechanical similarities, but you can't argue that some minor tweaks and a Dash 9 can replace a P42 in most respects, and I still don't think "minor modifications" would get a Dash 9 up to 103mph, much less the 110mph needed to be an improvement over the P42.

It might need a different truck design, but there is no reason why with different gearing, the basic engine couldn't provide the power. The Dash-8 P32-BWH's can do 110, IIRC.

However, hood body diesels are not aerodynamically efficient. At the slow speeds most freight trains move, this is entirely irrelevant, but on a passenger train doing 110 its critical.

I'd be surprised if Amtrak doesn't toy with the ALP-45DPs. If they can use more powerful diesels in them, the basic technology would allow for Amtrak to offer 125mph service in areas that don't have cat electrification- yet be able to handle catenary if it ever gets strung up, even in short segments.

Even if not ALP-45DPs, I bet you the ALP-45DP body could be comfortably modified to handle a more traditional diesel-electric set up, and would also allow for Penn access.

 

[battalion51]

The ALP-45DP would be an ideal engine in corridor areas that see trains going on and off catenary on a regular basis. It would be great for trains like the Vermonter, Pennsylvanian, and Northeast Regionals. Makeup wise these trains are very similar to the NJT trains that the motor was designed for. Part of me wonders if it would possibly be practical for the Empire Connection as well. AFAIK the third rail only is needed for a very short distance, so it wouldn't be too expensive to put catenary up in that short stretch. You'd then create an engine commonality for Empire Corridor trains with other select Northeast Regionals. The larger the pool of engines the better...

 

[AlanB]

Most of the engineers don't even flip the switch until the engine pops out of the Empire Connection tunnel, at which point they're already under cat as it is. The third rail does extend into the tunnel a ways, but again half the time they aren't even bothering to use it.

 

[Guest]

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.

Last I heard, GE was out of the passenger unit business too. There was some recent talk that they might get back into it. Perhaps the upcoming Amtrak order is large enough for them to consider.

The MP-40 seems to be breaking in well on 12 car, double-deck GO trains in Toronto and more are on order. A lot of the main components on the MP-40 are EMD designed and can no doubt be adapted to Amtrak or Via service.

Regards,

Gord

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The MP-40 is an ok engine for Amtrak use in captive service. For example, if the new bi-level order doesn't happen and Michigan somehow wins a multi-billion dollar lottery and decides to create Amtrak Michigan, and start running 20 round trips to Pontiac and 10 round trips to Port Huron and 10 round trips to Grand Rapids and a round trip to Mackinaw, or some such, and they buy 100+ cars for this service, buying MP40s to haul them would be ok.

But for the general fleet, Amtrak needs something else. List of requirements for an Amtrak engine:

1) It must fit into NYP.

2) It should be able to fit into NYG. (it makes life easier for weird situations)

3) It MUST have a range of at least 500 miles- at about 4 gallons to the mile, that means it needs a 2000 gallon fuel tank.

4) Given that refueling stops are rarely more then about 250 miles apart, it MUST be able to idle providing hotel power for at least 36 hours with a half tank of fuel. Imagine a donner pass situation as an example. A commuter engine has no need for this, but on an LD train it is almost critical.

5) It must be aerodynamically efficient. Given passenger engines move at speed, it is critical to decent fuel efficiency.

6) It must be able to move and track comfortably at 110, perhaps even 125, mph.

7) This is Amtrak. This thing needs to be forgiving, capable of tolerating an operation where "State of good repair" is the best they aim for. The F40 was a rugged engine, it could handle Amtrak's limited maintenance. The Genesis, likewise. A commuter line doesn't need this. Amtrak runs routes they can't afford to run. They cut repairs and so on rather then cutting frequencies because cutting frequencies on some of their important trains means eliminating sizable chunks of our nations passenger rail network. NJ Transit runs short, you see reverse-peak and off-peak trains cut. Amtrak doesn't have that luxury.

The Genesis is ideal for all of these things. Its low height and the fact that its prime mover is sunken so that it rides between the trucks, gives it a low center of gravity. This allows it to move more comfortably around a curve at speed compared to a taller engine like a MP40, and more importantly, gives it better stability at speed.

Because Amtrak maintains a fleet of some 250 diesel engines, they all need to have these features to survive the system. Interoperability is an Amtrak mantra.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

I wonder if they should have an order with an option of up to 300 units. the current fleet size seems to barely stretch, and with all the talk of expansion-- they'd have enough in the transition but as they start retiring P40s and P42s, the final standing fleet of LD prime movers needs to be above 250 IMHO.