Only a few local delivery freights. No run through freights.
Thought that there was only a ~25,000 pound difference between the ALP 45DP and the Siemens Charger? Is that difference really enough to tear up the tracks while the charger would not?
Even the Chargers won't be kind to the tracks, but every bit of lesser weight helps. At the end of the day all it means is that the tracks have to be maintained more frequently.
I had heard the Bombardier Multilevel IIIs were causing issues with weight but given that their axle load is in that 15 ton weight range, really just seems to be an issue with the dual modes. Wish NJT had followed suit with Amtrak and offloaded some of the dual mode electric equipment from the DP into a Multilevel to save weight per axle.
Actually the weight of the locomotives is related to the weight of the multi-levels In order to be able to accelerate a train of 8-10 multilevels at a reasonable rate using a single power head, to operate vaguely acceptably on a frequent stopping suburban service you require the axle load to get enough tractive effort. So it is not like merely off loading axle load would make it work unless with the axle load some tractive effort is also offloaded. That is why the axles under the panto car in the ICTs are powered. NJT should have acquired EMUs for their operating characteristics, but the geniuses at MMC bought a bill of goods served to them by Bombardier, which was quite unsuitable for their use, instead. Now they are desperately and belatedly trying to convert them into EMUs by getting enough powered multi level (MPVs) so as to create three car units consisting of one MPV and two MLVs so as to be able to accelerate reasonably. Since they have endless capital funding but not enough operating money they can fritter away gobs of money doing idiotic things.
Sorry in advance if I go in a few directions here:
I understand your comment regarding the EMUs being a much better option, but what would have been your suggestion for their other rolling stock that goes from electric to diesel territory if you don’t have time to wait to electrify the whole network (NJ Coast Line, Main Line etc)
I heard about this order and seemed promising but then I remembered I’m talking about NJT, who cant get anything right. Are you aware of any info or have an educated guess on what kind of HP the EMU MLIII EMU power cars are supposed to or need to have? Just curious how much they might need in order to provide superior acceleration to the existing ALP46A consists and if they will be remotely successful in mitigating the issues that NJT currently has.
They have EMUs that can also operate on diesel power too, called DEMUs or Bi-Mode trains. Alstom I know mounts the diesel engines on the roof as seen for SNCF's Régiolis trains, which you can see for yourself in this video. No need to attach anything, switch to diesel mode and the train continues on its way.
EMUs would perform better than those lumbering push-pulls, specially on lines like the M&E which has very frequent stops with some very significant gradient. In bad winter days the 46s and even the 45s spend more time spinning their wheels on the Short Hills ramp than actually moving trains. I used to live by the ramp. It was at once hilarious and painful to watch.There is a reason that the French use push-pulls only on Regional trains with infrequent stops and use EMUs on subrurban trains with frequent stops.
They are planning to run 12 car trains with four MPVs so my guess would be around 2000HP. 1000HP per power pack/truck. Remember it is not just the horsepower but the effective utilization of 16 axles to transmit the power in the form of traction/tractive effort, not just 4.
DMUs of course. For exacly the same reasons. The whole entire rest of the world has gone that way, but we in the US have been reluctant to even fund development of such.
My understanding is that so far as regulations are concerned a DMU car is considered a locomotive, so it is subject to regulations that a non-powered coach is not, thus the tendency toward engine plus coach trains. Probably also means that EMU would also be considered as locomotives if in non-transit system use, but for the most part EMU's operate in areas where other issues are more significant than the extra inspections/maintenance issues raised by all units being powered.
As to "different ends of the operating costs." This gets into how far apart are these ends? 10% difference, 50% difference or what? If the difference is not great, then it could be a non-issue.
In general are smaller motors more efficient than larger ones in terms of size and weight to horsepower? Or can you often double horsepower without doubling sizing and weight of a given engine?
The 155PS rail is long gone. Think it was last rolled sometime in the 50's or 60's. The original NEC standard of the early 1970's was supposed to be 140RE, which is/was the 140PS renamed. Much of the line was already in 140 lb rail, by one name or the other. Don't think they are still using it, but have gone to either 136RE or 141RE. All of these (136, 140,141) have 6 inch bases, so they are essentially interchangeable so far as ties are concerned. The 155PS had a wider base, I think 6 3/4 inches, but I am not going to look it up right now.
Does that mean tie plates as well as ties?
Yes. Actually, I meant to say tie plates in the first place, because on timber ties that is all that it would be, although if on concrete ties it would mean the ties themselves, since the rail fastener shoulders are embedded in the tie, itself.
