Amtrak puts out RFP for new and rebuilt locomotives.

That is not a rumor. The RFP says: Supply and delivery of EITHER (a) General Electric P42-8 locomotives to be rebuilt with alternating current (AC) propulsion OR (b) new long distance diesel-electric locomotives with Alternative Power and Structure Options AND (c) TSSSA for above-referenced locomotives.
Source: https://procurement.amtrak.com/irj/portal/anonymous?NavigationTarget=navurl://7e7c6db809b56f05f8e58e6565a217df
and then DOC733896.

The rebuilt P42 has to comply to EPA Tier 1+. That is possible with the 7FDL-16.

Putting the innards of the HSP46 into the P42 shell looks like a challenge. The P42 is 2 ft shorter and 1 ft lower. The Gevo T3 is heavier than the FDL, the cooling system larger and heavier, and you have the weight of the additional AC equipment (IGBT etc.).

My personal opinion? I think as rebuilding offer we’ll see a high-speed diesel engine replacement to address the load restriction of the P42’s monocoque.

Better suited would be new locomotives I think, otherwise we talk about the same topic again in 10 to 15 years. That was one of the reasons why Amtrak choose to buy the new Genesis series instead of rebuilding the F40PH.
Regards, Volker

I think the real question on rebuilding the P42 is going to be around Crashworthiness upgrades. If it weren’t for that, the Tier1+ upgrade is a no brainer.

Do they really need to maintain access to NYP with a diesel? Or do they rebuild a set of the p42s just for that access and go new for the rest of the fleet? EMD and GE have built plenty of freight units to low clearance specifications for exports. So they know the tricks here.

For the sake of competition in the bidding process, I wander if the EMD F125 in serious contention. Though Amtrak or someone has 150 options for Chargers with larger fuel tanks.

Do not understand how the F125 can be so heavy. Must be the same frame as the hefty DM30s.

For comparison:

A FP9 weighs 260,000 lbs (65,000/axle)

E9 is 315,000 lbs (52,500/axle)

Both those models have long, successful track records running at 90-100 mph (more on some railroads).

A shame one could not order a new run of E bodies and place QSKs inside.

Both DM30 and F125 have monocoques, the side walls take part in carrying the loads. The weight saving compared to the same locomotive on a platform is about 20,000 lbs.

To comply to crashworthiness standards you need, put simple, material and that weighs. And than you have the whole equipment. Here is an overview of the F125 in an early state: https://prezi.com/xhizn5e6bity/f125-tier-4-emd-status-report/

All the modern passenger locomotives weigh between 270K and 290K lbs with the F125 in between.
Regards, Volker

Interesting postulation. Unfortunately all the railroad ready high-speed diesels: Cummins, Cat, MTU, are already spoken for. GE’s P616 Jenbacher dirived engine is the right size at 99 litres but unless they can get it to 1800 RPM/4400 HP then it’s no sale. On top of all that modifying the existing systems to accept a new plant will probably make the conversion cost prohibitive.

As far as crashworthiness goes, there are no requirements for upgrades when you’re dealing with an older rebuilt locomotive. Aside from checking and repairing structural elements with corrosion damage, I can’t think of anything else that could be done easily.

As for the units used around NYC, a new dual mode order is apparently in the works, so that might allow them to access the low the clearance tunnels if other new engines couldn’t fit.

Unfortunately all the railroad ready high-speed diesels: Cummins, Cat, MTU, are already spoken for:

Why would Cummins stop supplying engines to MPI? The MP54 uses them, and the MP27C and MP33C export units use QSK60s and QSK78s.

I’d expect Cummins would be very happy to provide QSK95s to rebuild Amtrak locomotives to MPI or whatever Wabtec ends up calling GE Transportation.

Peter

I don’t see this problem either. None of the engine manufacturers are married to locomotive manufacturers except perhaps Caterpillar.

I wonder if EMD will offer the F125 again with the experience they made with this locomotive at Metrolink. Looks to me like a fiasco with just 3 engines conditionally accepted as of May 2nd, 2018.

With monocoque body, cab, and truck frames produced by Vossloh, now Stadler, in Spain they seem to be in a tight spot additionally. Buy America was 68%.

But we’ll see.
Regards, Volker

Why wouldn’t they offer it? Metrolink is the gunea pig and Amtrak/other commuter lines are seeing what becomes of it. Stadler has a facility in Utah, so could send some prefab bodies there and complete the work to meet the Buy American statue.

With the NEC and branches possible going EMU/DMU and the states with corridor service buying Chargers, there is not a need for a large amount of locomotives by Amtrak now. These locomotives are for the LD trains. Looking at it through that prism of trying to keep costs down, doing a rebuild of Genesis with modern guts and AC traction willallow more LD trains to go down to one unit instead two.

A Siemens top off order just makes too much sense though, their mx support system is already in place. Though a Charger in phase III will not be the most elegant looking creature.

EMD and Metrolink might be able to debug the F125 but at what cost. According to the schedule in the linked status report the first 17 locomotives should have completed in-service testing by April 2017. As of May 2nd 2018 just 5 locomotives are in-service testing and just 15 are on the property. There seems to be a delay of about 1-1/2 years.

I think EMD ends this project with a huge loss. The last time a similar experience with the DM30 led to an absence of the passenger locomotive market till now.

The other question is, is Stadler willing to produce the monocoque, cab, and truck frames for EMD for an Amtrak order. Final assembly was done at EMD’s Muncie plant. I think Stadler will be too occupied by producing the Caltrain DMUs until 2020s to build monocoques etc. in Utah.

Buy American can have some weird consequences beside costs. The steel for the F125 monocoque was produced and cut in the USA, shipped to Spain (sometimes airlifted) and built into the body there and shipped back. Small mistakes can have heavy consequences under these circumstances.

You get perhaps 400 hp more into a Genesis when rebuilding it. That wouldn’t reduce locomotive numbers on trains I think. Just allow better HEP supply, better acceleration and higher speeds or one more care.

The people g

A rebuild of crashworthiness may not be required, but given the high profile accidents recently, may become a “hot potato” requirement.

It also depends on the percentage new parts yes? If the locomotive has too much new and is no longer a rebuild, then modern stnadards would apply.

Beyond Caterpillar, presumably Wabtec/GE also isn’t going to be shopping the FDL/GEVO/T4-GEVO to other integrators. I see no reason why Wabtec wouldn’t continue to consider the Cummins. Just as EMD/GM relied on Caterpillar for the GP20D and similar.

So the questions that need answers:

How do Amtrak’s desire for better emissions, potential worry about safety and price sensitivity interact? Does a rebuilt P42 get the maximum Emissions package that can fit in the body or do they go with the minimum required? DO they modify for crashworthiness?

Or, If they go with new, are they going to put in the infrastructure needed to refill SCR tanks along the route? Or are they going to follow the freight railroads and demand a solution that doesn’t require it and as a result have to look at new bogie designs to get the weight down? Or does someone come up with a counter-intuitive solution? Such as multiple smaller units, articulated engine sets etc etc etc.

One further note based on the made in America requirement. The Administratives current tarrifs are also going to impact some of this yes?

Incidentally, Reading through some discussions on the internet, it sounds like Progress sent the support team for Metrolink packing and brought in new staff who have done much better at resolving issues. The bulk off issues appear to be build quality which doesn’t reflect well on Progress/EMD. Though they don’t appear to be having the same issue with the SD70-T4, so is it possible that it’s actually Caterpillar employees doing the integration work for the C175 that are part of the problem. A crossfunctional dysfunction as it were? Other rumors are that once those issues are worked out, the engine is well liked and I haven’t heard of any failures from the units that were conditionally certified. So it maybe that Caterpillar takes a bath on this, but comes out with a good product…but no industry good will for that product.

So in the end of the matter, the F125 is a good locomotive. Sad to say, Metrolink was the guinea pig.

Interesting, never would have thought of that.

I looked into the crashworthiness law again. 49 CFR §229.203 (a) requires new and remanufactured locomotive to comply to 49 CFR 229 Subpart D from January 1st 2009:(b) and (c) don’t apply here

§ 229.203 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, this subpart applies to all locomotives manufactured or remanufactured on or

I think it is still too early to say.

There was a shake-down period of 1,000 miles without failure required to get conditionally accepted. That was upped to 2,500 miles because of the many failures the first two units had. Only three units reached 2,500 miles without failure so far. That doesn’t tell much about the end result but about the possible loss of reputation
Regards, Volker

The build quality is currently the largest issues. Before there were problems with the urea system that led to locomotive break-downs. EMD replaced improperly constructed urea tank and had to modify urea piping. Additionally there were software failures leading to wrong load meter readings.

But delays started earlier with design failures (access ladders, handholds, headlight accessability etc) and issues with suppliers.

Perhaps the project got a hit at EMD when they lost the IDOT Multi-State Procurement though they thought they had a home field advantage.
Regards, Volker.

I got the impression the SCR pump issue was a build quality issue. I don’t think any of the other engines besides the 3 are ready to start shake down. Or at least they weren’t a few months back. They’re all in the pipeline to get updates and at least one was delivered with freeze damage and another had some unrelated required work. Basically it looks like the entire project is snakebit. When you start out with a few self-inflicted wounds, the other issues that would normally be no big deal become a nightmare add in support staff that pissed off the customer and wasn’t getting stuff done.