This is the IDOT order that produced the initial EMD reaction that the Charger design ‘as specified’ could not physically sustain a full 125mph with design load. I have not seen any explicit discussion that the nominal HP of the Charger locomotive has been bumped up ‘slightly’ since that time, perhaps specifically to “remedy the deficit” as it were.
We’ve already seen the link to video of these two units leaving the plant in Sacramento, and to them apparently ‘working’ in MU with Genesis units on Amtrak going to Colorado.
Since we were discussing the ‘universal’ EUDDplus incentive in another thread, I thought it might be interesting to show the “current best practice” control layout that Siemens is using in these locomotives –
BTW: are there any published torque and HP curves for the locomotive QSK95 yet? I suspect they may have bumped the initial 1200rpm up somewhat, perhaps to ‘make the numbers’ without using temporary boost. It might be interesting to see if any testing of CECX 1919 is being conducted at higher operating rpm…
If I remember correctly, the QSK95 in stationary genset operation was rated up to 5100hp – I am presuming that would be at 1800rpm.
The units in tow at Rocklin CA recently on their was from Sacramento to the testing facility. Amtrak used four powered GE units for the added weight of the two Chargers to the normal train.
I noticed that these locomotives and their electric counterparts have a large end overhang – the trucks appear to be close to each other and hence farther from the couplers at the locomotive ends.
This overhang is going to be a problem for our train modeling friends, giving pronounced coupler swing around the sharp curves they use. But won’t this also give problems in 12"-to-the-foot scale railroading, especially around sharp curves as used in terminals and other areas?
Here’s a nit pick. I know the headline for this thread came from IRJ, but as one of the early slides in almost every TTCI PowerPoint tries to point out, the facility is DOT’s Transportation Technology Center, the company that operates it is Transportation Technology Center Inc. a for profit (as opposed to a nonprofit ) wholly owned subsidiary of the AAR. The relationship is unusual in that TTCI has Care, Custody and Control of the facility. It is said that this is the only such arrangement related to a government facility in the US.
The article could be interpreted to suggest that TTCI has another facility. The only thing close to that was a desk and a phone in London that constituted TTCI(UK)Ltd. There were plans to close this but I still see it listed in the British trade magazines. This arrangement allowed TTCI to do business easily in the EU. Guess that goes away!
I guess you might argue that since most of the AAR inspectors in the US are TTCI employees and they work out of their homes, there are a bunch of satellite offices.
That would require creating another corporate identity, cost about $100,000 per year just to exist . The current president of TTCI is not keen on overseas activities even though they made millions from Railtrack in the post Hatfield meltdown. Anyway don’t hold your breath.
I think you are confusing the share-capital requirements for an EU corporation with the yearly fees and costs. The ‘bank’ requirement is only that cash on hand has to meet expected business needs; where the “needs” are promotion of TTCI work product, and research, that cash requirement might not be substantial.
I’m not confusing anything. You’re confused and not listening to what I’m saying. The approximate $100,000 annual cost of maintaining the UK entity was reported to be due to legal fees, auditing costs and taxes. This was totally independent of business levels.
I just checked with the retired Managing Director (head guy in UK terms) of TTCI (UK) Ltd (actually a US employee) and the number was $89,000 per year several years ago when he retired. This will of course be affected by the $/£ exchange rate. Some of that mat be related to the rates charged by the legal and auditing firms the AAR insisted on using but the same would still be true of a Brussels based entity.
Sorry I did not respond to this earlier. I conceded the point after the earlier post without ‘demur’. But thank you for providing additional hard evidence from someone with even more distinctive competence in that specific respect!
Sorry I have looked back and can’t find that concession but anyhow it speaks to your tendency not to listen to posters that may know something that you don’t and impose your own opinion.
You really offended me when I had first hand knowledge of the situation when you told me I was confused. My goodness where do you come off saying that!
Since Maryland ordered some Chargers, they have a dog in the hunt. And there was nothing at TTC 125 certified (truck wear is keeping the NJT cars to 110).
Heard that rumor as well. If it is on time I will be able to catch it tomorrow and will be able to report on it. Silver Lariat and Solarium are confirmed to be on the train as well, going north for the Leavenworth Ski Train.
The train was an hour and a half late, so I had another appointment I had to go to. A friend did see it at the station and he did not think the unit was running. I’m hoping to catch it on a few Cascades runs soon, though I am sad that the F59PHI replacements are already here.
