The new GE and EMD locomotives for high speed trains in USA.

The train would be longer! (and it would run a few minutes slower). I wonder what would happen if the rear car was just a cab car instead of a locomotive ala the X2000. I’ll have to check, but I don’t think Acela runs more than 10 minutes faster NYP-WAS than the old AEM8/6 Amfleet consists did. Seems like a lot of BUCK for a pretty small bang.

Bombarier and the Fed DOT took what was basically an Acela locomotive, yanked out the transformer and shoe-horned in a small gas turbine/gen set. The result was a 5000 HP, high speed locomotive. It tested out at 150 mph at Pueblo, did a quick tour of North America and then disappeared.

They weigh 268,000#. I think those MK commuter locomotives are in the 290,000+# range. Total unsprung weight for a P42 is about 15 tons. (wheels, axles, bearings, bull gear plus half of each TM)

A truck modified to an A-1-A configuration would be one quick fix to reduce axle load by a third. The recent BNSF foray into an A-1-A configuration seems to be to increase weight on the driving axles for adhesion at starting speeds as well as reduce resistance of the motor gearing for a given power output. My thought is that a leading powered axle will encounter wet rail and be more likely to slip. A 1-B+B-1 configuration would work better in that respect; but I’m dubious about the tracking qualities of such an arrangement. Jerry, somebody, help me here if you can; I’m out of my depth.

I never heard about swapping a lighter turbine for a diesel. It’s not that simple.

  • Softer springing and snubbers are needed to match the change in weight.

  • Components need to be moved to balance the weight on the trucks.

  • The body and frame, possibly ballasted to achieve maximum adhesion within axle load limits, would need rebuilding to reduce the weight.

  • The weight of the locomotive without rebuilding or starting from scratch, along with the unsprung weight on axles, would exacerbate track degradation at an exponential rate as speed increases.

  • The increased length for a large fuel tank and 3-axle trucks adds unnecessary weight.

There have been three more recent non-electric high speed locomotives built or proposed.

  • The 3,700-hp Bombardier LRC weight was listed in different places at 225,000 lbs and 240,000 lbs. It was designed to run at higher speeds; but trains were limited to 95 mph in service.

  • The proposed but never built EMD 3,000-hp AMT-125 with 40-series components would weigh in at 225,000 lbs as I recall and would reduce axle load to roughly 28 tons, about 12%.

  • A gas turbine power car was built to demonstrate the Acela for non-electrified territory but never strayed far from New York; and I have no idea of its loaded weight or top speed.

Balt - until very recently that was the thinking of the Treasury (who control the government purse starungs) here in the UK. But someone persuaded them to look not simply at the cost of the electrification but to consider how to provide the required trains and then to look at the maintenance etc. “whole life”. It turns out that when they did that it was actually cheaper to electrify Brunels route to Bristol and South Wales than to build new diesel trains. Two things that, I accept, make the decision different to any require in the US are (1) while some of the stock (for the runs to Bristol and Wales) will be new the stock for the commuter service out of London as far as Oxford and Newbury will (in part) be provided by refurbishing the existing trains that currently run the “Thameslink” route North/South across London for which new trains are already being procured. The remaining commuter service will be provided by the new trains already on the cards for “Crossrail”! (East/West across London). (2) the railways is already engineered for 125mph and there are no plans to increase that.

And, the service to Newbury/Oxford won’t use all of the Thameslink trains so we have several other routes (including Manchester to Liverpool and Manchester to Blackpool) in the NW of England also up for electrification.

We’ve justified all these electrifications based on passenger traffic. But there has been speculation among the enthusiast community that by extending the electrification from Newbury down to Westbury (and slightly beyond) the trains that bring the limestone quarrye

It was known as “JetTrain”. 5000 HP, 150 mph tested at Pueblo. There used to be a nice video on Bombarier’s web site of the test, but it’s long gone now.

A very interesting and creative concept.

Do y9u or anyone have the estimated time to completion of this order. I have not seen a status report for a long time.

You know, I’ve been thinking about that since I posted it. I have not found anything further about it except for the original announcement.

If you go to the beginning of this subject, you’ll see that it was a reader’s question, not a press release for a contract. This has been purely conjectural musing.

Gas turbine power also was discussed in a previous thread as a potential higher speed alternative to a diesel-electric drive without incurring the cost for electrification. And electrified HSR was discussed with respect to coordination with a national electrified freight rail trunk system.

You mean the extra Acela coaches, right? My recollection of this was it never got any further than Boardman’s musing. He suggested that Amtrak COULD put a surcharge on Acela fares and use the proceeds to purchase 20 extra coaches. I don’t think I ever saw a press release or other info stating an order was placed or was imminent.

Elsewhere here we are talking about Acela refurbishment which adds 26 revenue seats to the Cafe Care. That’s a start, I think.