Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

ALP-45 Dual Power Locomotive


Recommended Posts

So, i'm sure at least some of us on here have heard (NJT)'s attempt at ordering locomotives that run under catenary, and also tout an efficient diesel engine for non-electrified territory. Some believe this is a wild goose chase since the last working (though problem prone) prototype was sent out for scrap many, many years ago.

 

They even stress this plan in the ARC project proposals:

 

What improvements will be constructed as part of the ARC project?

 

"ARC includes the construction of two new tracks in the Meadowlands, two new single-track tunnels under the Hudson River and an expansion of Penn Station New York under 34th Street, including direct connections to NYC subways at 8th, 7th and 6th avenues, as well as PATH. Additional capacity and a connection to the Main, Bergen County, Pascack Valley and Port Jervis lines will allow for transfer-free service to Penn Station New York."

 

Fear not. The P40DC, and ALP-46 locomotives have one thing in common. They have a lot of space inside. More than you'd think. In fact, a P40 with a smaller engine would have more than enough room to pack in all the electronics to run under catenary power. There's another version called the P40AC, which uses a 12 cylinder engine vs a 16 cylinder engine. Granted it doesn't make it THAT much smaller, however, you don't need 4000 horsepower to move a train, you only need around 2500 to choo-choo about 95 mph with a full length train.

 

So, basically, the problem is this. How long/heavy will the locomotive be? The P40 series is 70 feet long, the alp-46 is also 70 feet long. The alp-46 has a dual cab. Eliminate the dual cab, put the electric stuff in the back, the diesel in the middle, and the driver at the front, and you could pull the train, which would be hooked up in the back (or the other way round in push mode). So you take a ~3000 hp diesel with an AC power setup, and hook it to the catenary system, which would be AC. Smaller shared electronics & smaller diesel engine would eliminate the need for a co-co arrangement, and at worst case it would be bo-co with the bo- being at the front and the -co being at the back Problem :septa:olved.

 

Next?

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

- A

Edited by Pablo M 201
Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh man those locomotives are really huge and tall. I like the P40 locomotives better, your concern however is making smaller trains, those locos don't make the train smaller.

 

No, this is about controlling the length and weight of a locomotive housing 2 totally different power systems. There were some ideas about making it articulated, but you can't be having some 90 foot long locomotive. It has to work with the facilities currently in place.

 

A co-co truck arrangement wouldn't bode well for higher speed or very sharp curves. Several very interesting electric designs failed to get past prototype phase because the wheel layout didnt work well on curves, especially in yards, and since penn station is essentially yard with platforms, would be a disaster.

 

bo-co would be a tad more flexible, allowing 2 axles to carry the lighter front end, and 3 to carry the rear weight.

 

Most likely though will be a bo-bo arrangement.

 

- A

 

Sorry it took me all day to post this. Just sat on my computer screen!

 

Yea, i was thinking 2 small diesels would be better. Lighter, less space, less fuel & redundancy.

 

- A

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as feasibility concerns, the ALP-45s would most likely be dual cabs. When it's out on the rails, it would be used like Amtrak's AEM7s and HHP-8s; coupling and recoupling multiple times. Hoboken has a policy of locomotives facing west, while no such policy exists for NY bound trains. As a result, those trains heading to Hoboken would be recoupled to be in push mode.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as feasibility concerns, the ALP-45s would most likely be dual cabs. When it's out on the rails, it would be used like Amtrak's AEM7s and HHP-8s; coupling and recoupling multiple times. Hoboken has a policy of locomotives facing west, while no such policy exists for NY bound trains. As a result, those trains heading to Hoboken would be recoupled to be in push mode.

 

There would be no need to do that. (NJT) operates both diesels & electrics in a back-forth pattern, loco first going there, then cab car first coming back. Also, diesels usually are hooked to the same set all day, and switchers do the moving, not the pax loco. The pax locos run in service, or run to be parked, they do not uncouple and re-couple all day. (NJT) has a very capable switcher fleet that move the cars without the pax locos having to move.

 

Head over to hoboken terminal some time to get a better understanding of what i'm sayin. :P

 

- A

Link to post
Share on other sites

The emd's that I recall were the GM6C & GM10,painted white

with electro motive lettering,neither one was a duel mode,they

were built to replace the PRR GG1/E44 in freight service,there

was a state funded project back in the early 80's by NJ DOT

to convert emd E8's to duel modes with the internal parts of

the 7 E44's NJ dot purchased from GE,plans were scrapped &

E44's were traded to amtrak for the E60's,the only duel modes

that I ever knew of back then were FL9's and nothing till amtrak

GE's built

Link to post
Share on other sites
The emd's that I recall were the GM6C & GM10, painted white

with electro motive lettering,neither one was a duel mode,they

were built to replace the PRR GG1/E44 in freight service,there

was a state funded project back in the early 80's by NJ DOT

to convert emd E8's to duel modes with the internal parts of

the 7 E44's NJ dot purchased from GE,plans were scrapped &

E44's were traded to amtrak for the E60's,the only duel modes

that I ever knew of back then were FL9's and nothing till amtrak

GE's built

 

They did convert one, but it was too heavy & too long. It had a pantograph up top & a diesel tank down below.

 

This image is of the white electric you spoke of, the diesel version had a tank.

 

 

tr_emd1976.jpg

 

The diesel/pantograph i'm talking about was co-co & looked like the e44

 

- A

Link to post
Share on other sites
would love to see a photo of it if there is one

 

I did see it, but all one has to do is not pay the hosting bill or a ton of other things that could happen & that photo goes away off the internet. Has happened to other photos. Sometimes they are mislabeled by google for instance or the file name or caption changes.

 

- A

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you remember what paint/lettering/rd # was on it?

 

Large EMD lettering & white. It was not even a demonstrator it never left EMD plant grounds. I believe a water tower with GM on it is visible in the background.

 

- A

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I finally found the power specs for the locomotive:

two 2250 hp CAT 3516B engines for a total of 4200 hp (after power transmission multiplication)

 

electric power is 6700 hp (kinda low, don't you think?)

loco's 72 ft long.

2000 gallon fuel tank.

 

i don't know how much power is going to be taken off for HEP during diesel mode, but during electric mode, i think one of the diesels should be sufficient in providing HEP, so all 6700 hp can be used for traction.

Edited by Fan Railer
more stuff
Link to post
Share on other sites
I finally found the power specs for the locomotive:

two 2250 hp CAT 3516B engines for a total of 4200 hp (after power transmission multiplication)

 

electric power is 6700 hp (kinda low, don't you think?)

loco's 72 ft long.

2000 gallon fuel tank.

 

i don't know how much power is going to be taken off for HEP during diesel mode, but during electric mode, i think one of the diesels should be sufficient in providing HEP, so all 6700 hp can be used for traction.

 

That is cool. I doubt you'd need to run the diesel engines under catenary though. The E60 series was only 6000 hp. Older electric locos without steam HEP were also lower and still did quite fine. Remember the trains are not going to be running 100 mph, more like 75-85 mph. Do you know what they are having as the truck layout? My bet is on bo-co but i've been surprised before. Like the heavy beast E60 this could also be bo-bo, but you'd think they would learn from the mistake of having that much weight on only 4 axles.......

 

- A

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those aem-7 are getting older. Gotta replace them some time, they are not aging very well compared to most other electrics. Plus :septa: dual power locos would allow re-activation of non-electrified lines till electrification funding is available. :tup:

 

- A

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.