I keep hearing stories about how these locomotives have tendency to fail more than past amtrak locomotives, my question is this true and why
From what I have heard the Genesis units (like most other newly designed types) had their teething pains early on and then settled down to become very reliable units racking up millions of miles hauling you and me around the country.
Many Amtrak trains are now operated with a single Genesis locomotive. An engine has to be quite reliable to do that.
dd
Most of the “bugs” in the D840BPHs and D942BPHs were worked out. The ACDM32BPHs still act up, but they behave, most of the time.[:-^]
Single engine trains, both freight and passenger, are the bean counters delight and the operating departments nightmare…when that single engine fails you have a virtual derailment in the operation until other power can be summoned to move the dead train.
For an Amtrak train, how far away (in minutes or hours) is that help likely to be? And what would be the source of that help?
The help can be minutes to hours away, compounding the problem of a total engine failure for Amtrak, when the engine totally fails there is also no HEP (Head End Power) to keep the heat, lights and AC working for the comfort of the passengers.
Murphy’s Rule of railroads mandates that any help for a failed engine will be as far away and probably approaching the train from the wrong end to be able to help immediately. While freight railroads will use their power to move a dead Amtrak train, since most road power today is the so called Wide Body Cab equipment, the helping power must be headed in the correct direction since Wide Bodies cannot be operated backwards effectively (no ditch lights on the rear of the engine) as well as the rearward vision of these engines make it unsafe for them to operate in a reverse direction other than for ‘short’ switching type moves.
One does not want ANY train to be dead on a Main Track with engine failure. The way todays trains are built, there is rarely a train that has power excess for it’s tonnage and is thereby able to supply a locomotive to a train with a failed engine.
How many times a year do failed engines cause dead trains on a mainline? (Passenger or freight) Are preventive maintenance procedures sufficient to make this a very rare occurrence?
We must all remember back to steam days when virtually all passenger trains were pulled by a single steam locomotive and needless to say the steamers were a whole lot more finicky than the diesels which replaced them and so the steam pulled trains were a whole lot more likely to suffer engine failure thant he diesels these days.
Amtrak single engine failures will occur once or twice a year on most of the subdivisions where Amtrak operates, however, most trains are operated with more than a single unit, at least those trains that are greater than 10 cars.
While freight trains are most normally operated with multiple units, in todays operating enviornment the failure of a single engine, considering that most trains are powered for the tonnage of the train (ie. power is rated for 15000 tons over the ruling grade and the train is handling 14800 tons.) the failure of a single engine, even with a multiple unit consist can cause the failed engine to generate the virtual derailment situation. There are more options available in handling a freight train with failed power than there are in handling Amtrak with failed power, as a freight train can be ‘assisted’ to the nearest point of clearing and then wait until additional serviceable power can be obtained. For Amtrak such a ‘clearing location’ must be at the least, a location where Amtrak can safely transfer the passengers to busses should the amount of time necessary to get replacement power become excessive.
First of all, this talk about “virtual derailment” – you don’t need to get a crane to a train that has lost power in a locomotive; most times all that is needed is a locomotive.
Secondly, railroading along with Amtrak operations seem to have reasons for everything they are doing, and pajama-clad railroaders with Internet access need not criticize anything.
But on corridor trains, Amtrak already operates two locomotives on all its trains – a locomotive at one and with a motor, and a “cabbage” car at the other end. Why couldn’t Amtrak use a pair of 2000 HP locomotives at each end with 8 cylinder Diesels instead of a single 4000 HP locomotive and dead weight at the other end? How about something low horsepower, light weight and low-profile to better match the aerodynamics of the train like the FM Speed Merchant locomotive that they stuck one on each end of a New Haven Talgo train?
If these corridor trains need essentially half a locomotive at each end, how about a locomotive with the prime mover at one end and the rest of the carbody taken up with revenue space? If the Diesel is too noisy, how about putting cafe car space in the locomotive carbody and put the main seating space in trailer coaches?
There is ample precedent in railroad practice for these suggestions – single-engined E’s and the like with the rest baggage space, the TurboTrain Power Dome Cars at the ends with single-axle articulated trailers in the middle. There is precendent in current product offerings: Colorado Railcars is promoting their DMU as this style of half locomotive – imagine a four-car ABBA set of DMU-trailer-trailer-DMU: you would have two power cars (four Diesel motors total), the same seating space as an Amtrak corridor train, and half the HP (2400 vs 4200), half the weight and lower aerodynamic drag, and probably half the fuel use.
OK, so you are afraid of grade crossing collisions with a DMU. There is no reason you couldn’t put a loc