|
|
| Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 design (1025427) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 4 |
||
|
| (1169696) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 design |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Tue Jul 31 00:24:01 2012, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 design, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 29 14:30:31 2012. So Amtrak is definitely NOT going to rebuild them into Acela power cars? |
|
|
| (1169707) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 |
|
|
Posted by CJ on Tue Jul 31 03:00:24 2012, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64, posted by R32_3672 on Mon Jul 30 22:55:03 2012. The last F40PH with Amtrak was sometime in 2003. |
|
|
| (1169728) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Tue Jul 31 09:13:03 2012, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Jul 30 21:22:15 2012. Lol fail |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1169749) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Tue Jul 31 13:38:34 2012, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 28 14:38:00 2012. "something in the design was off"Sure was - they were too heavy for the track! Same problem with the U30CG's and the Amtrak pooches not to mention Amtrak's own E60's. The Santa Fe pulled the GE's off of passenger trains after a major derailment while the pooches had a few big spills of their own before they were restricted to mainly midwest corridor service. Amtrak limited the E60's to 90 mph. None of these units survived very long. None were re-ordered. Some railroads (SP in particular) also had problems with HTC trucks on the dash 2 freight units. The SP units were among the heavier SD's at the time. EMD promoted the HTC on the basis that it offered less weight transfer and greater adhesion than the Flexicoil. Piling more weight on a unit also helps improve adhesion. Conversely, adhesion drops off on poor track. This is especially so for jointed rail. So if you have crap track and want to run big, heavy (low cost) trains, what do you do? Buy high tractive effort, heavy locomotives like the SP and fix the track only when you put one on the ground. Probably not the best long term strategy. On the SDP40's, EMD made some tweaks to the secondary suspension on the HTC's after a bunch of tests but the problems didn't end until the FRA changed how they regulate track structure. Going back on topic, I really doubt the ACS-64's will have any of these problems (or any of the problems that have plagued the HHP-8's)! |
|
|
| (1169757) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 31 14:34:56 2012, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64, posted by Jace on Tue Jul 31 13:38:34 2012. they were too heavy for the track! Same problem with the U30CG's and the Amtrak pooches not to mention Amtrak's own E60'sNo, they were absolutely not "too heavy for the track". P42DCs are heavier per axle (67,060 lbs/axle) than the E60s (64,500 lbs/axle), P30CHs and SDP40Fs (64,333 lbs), or any U-boat. Amtrak limited the E60s to 90 mph No, they were limited to 80 mph. The E60MA rebuilds could do 90 mph. Their weight per axle was 61,000. |
|
|
| (1169758) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Tue Jul 31 14:55:44 2012, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64, posted by Jace on Tue Jul 31 13:38:34 2012. They were not "too heavy" for the track. FRA investigations fingered the lightweight baggage car placed behind the heavier locomotive would set up harmonic vibrations when running over crappy track. Furthermore there was an issue with a steam heat boiler and its associated water supply sloshing around. |
|
|
| (1169783) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 |
|
|
Posted by CJ on Tue Jul 31 17:20:44 2012, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64, posted by Jace on Tue Jul 31 13:38:34 2012. In the defensive of the E60s. They did outlast all those other units making it into 2003 despite there issues and being limited to 90mph for the remainder of there careers. Although none the less you are 110% right about everything you said. |
|
|
| (1170065) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Thu Aug 2 11:18:11 2012, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64, posted by Jersey Mike on Tue Jul 31 14:55:44 2012. Thirty years later, there are still all kinds of stories about the SDP40's! Amazing. The HT-C's had a hollow bolster that somehow performed differently. They had a high CG with no baffles in the SG tanks. They were unstable only when coupled to baggage cars. They were unstable only when running elephant style...These factors above may have contributed in some cases, maybe not (the accident reports suggest not), but if any of these come into play at all, then the units were clearly marginal at best. So why were they marginal? Because they were heavy six axle locomotives running at high speeds on track that was inadequately designed and/or maintained. This problem was definitely not limited to the SDP40's, it was a problem of the times. This is why the SP had derailments on their SD45T-2's, so much so that they limited their speed while they conducted a nine month dynamic study of their own ("Dynamic Performance of the HT-C Suspension under Six Axle Locomotives", July 1977). The same issues were found on the U30CG's (no longer in passenger service after the February 1969 derailment of the Grand Canyon), and the pooches and the E60's. I should also add that four axle units weren't immune: the Empire Builder derailed in 1980 on the BN (how ironic!) due to the locomotives rolling the high rail on a curve. The locomotives: a couple of brand new F40's. SP's findings in their report were inconclusive but the were able to convince EMD that by going to a softer elastometer in the secondary springs and changing the dampers on all HTC trucks then dynamic performance would improve. The idea was to make the suspension less stiff going into curves as all of these derailments were due to excessive lateral force on the high rail. These changes were implemented on all HT-C's by 1978 yet there were still derailments. So what about the track? It seems that if you're going to be putting a lot of force into the high rail (which due in part to super-elevation is directly proportional to the mass - and speed - of the locomotive) then you've got to have a track structure that can withstand the load. If you knock down the high rail, the track structure was inadequate. Up until the 1970's the FRA specified the minimum number of spikes required for different classes of track. These minimums had not changed for many years despite significant increases in car and locomotive weights/axle loads, especially through the 1960's. Most railroads followed the minimums and that's it. Others (MP comes to mind) used more spikes in curves. (And note that the MP SD-40-2's were among the heaviest out there, heavier even than the SP SD45T-2's). This is why the derailments occured on some railroads and not on others. After all of these derailments, the FRA changed their rules. Instead of specifiying spike minimums, they now had a statement that said, in effect, that the track structure and specifically the number of spikes used has to be adequate for the trains operating on the track. Once track was designed and maintained to the new standard, these types of derailments disappeared even with all those thousands of HT-C's out there. |
|
|
| (1170066) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Aug 2 11:21:47 2012, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64, posted by Jace on Thu Aug 2 11:18:11 2012. The SDP40F is not the heaviest six-axle diesel. Compared to others, it's rather light. |
|
|
| (1170068) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Thu Aug 2 11:30:47 2012, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 31 14:34:56 2012. Is the track the same? More specifically, are the regulations governing track design and maintenance the same now as in the 1970's? Absolutely not - see my other comment for more. By the way, the EMD SDP40 spec shows a nominal weight of 396,000 pounds, +/- 4,000 pounds. That's 66,000 pounds nomimal up to a maximum of 66,667 pounds per axle. SP's SD45T-2's were 68,333 pounds while the MP SD-40's topped out at 69,000 pounds. Only very recently have railroads started to move above these weights: CSX is now going up to 72,000 pounds on their heavy (AH) GE's.Thanks for the correction on the E60's. |
|
|
| (1170069) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Thu Aug 2 11:36:14 2012, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Aug 2 11:21:47 2012. That's my point. SP put their heavy (415,000 pound) SD45T-2's on the gound in the same manner as the SDP40's not because of baggage cars or hollow bosters but because curved track could withstand the lateral forces of this locomotive. Lateral force is directly proportional to mass and velocity: the heavier and/or faster the locomotive, the higher the lateral force to be withstood by the track. If there's not enough in the track structure to withstand that force, then the high rail rolls over. |
|
|
| (1170070) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Aug 2 11:44:53 2012, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64, posted by Jace on Thu Aug 2 11:36:14 2012. Then all locomotives should have been equally susceptible to track conditions. |
|
|
| (1170074) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Thu Aug 2 12:03:49 2012, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Aug 2 11:44:53 2012. All locomotives were. In 1971, the RF&P put an E-unit powered passenger train on the ground after they sent it over skeletonized track with no speed restrictions! The NTSB reports of the 1970's are a litany of track woes.What these derailments showed was that a threshold had been not only been reached but exceeded. This threshold was tied to locomotive weights, speeds and track conditions. The railroads wanted heavy six axle locomotives: why else would the SP run a nine month test? They also speak glowing of all the advantages of the HT-C truck in their report. They also wanted to at least maintain the speeds they had. The solution then was to fix the track and specifically how it was regulated. |
|
|
| (1170079) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Thu Aug 2 12:33:38 2012, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64, posted by Jace on Thu Aug 2 11:36:14 2012. I botched these up a little so a couple of corrections on my numbers: the SP units were 410,000 pounds (68,333 per axle), the MP's were 417,000 pounds (69,500 per axle). |
|
|
| (1205209) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 design |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 18 01:22:22 2013, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 design, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Jul 29 16:54:10 2012. "Questionable at best"? Rc6s have been in service how long? never mind the AEM-7s? |
|
|
| (1205210) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 18 01:23:31 2013, in response to Amtrak's ACS-64 design, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Fri Jan 14 13:12:49 2011. First photo that I've seen. |
|
|
| (1205211) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Feb 18 01:36:42 2013, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 18 01:23:31 2013. I can never understand why Europe likes that cyclops look so much. |
|
|
| (1205213) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 18 01:50:55 2013, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Feb 18 01:36:42 2013. Nor I. The looks of the homegrown US electrics are still superior, even that of the E60 (which shoulda been of the GG1 family). |
|
|
| (1205216) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Feb 18 02:46:03 2013, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 18 01:50:55 2013. Nor I. The looks of the homegrown US electrics are still superior, even that of the E60 (which shoulda been of the GG1 family).Somehow, the Germans managed to come up with an electric locomotive of the same vintage that didn't look like an ugly brick and somehow managed to run at 125 mph without, you know, derailing. 
|
|
|
| (1205218) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Feb 18 02:48:13 2013, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Feb 18 01:36:42 2013. Too bad Amtrak can't simply lease the design rights for the GG1 from either Loewy's firm or the PC successors. I am confident that Siemens, Bombardier, or someone better could design a mechanical paslage into the shell. And,yes I would paint them Tuscan, and I'm not even a Pennsy fan. |
|
|
| (1205219) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Feb 18 03:02:02 2013, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Feb 18 02:48:13 2013. Too bad Amtrak can't simply lease the design rights for the GG1 from either Loewy's firm or the PC successors.In contrast, the rest of us who live in the year 2013 are pleased that we're not forced to rehash stone age designs for both our railway stations AND rolling stock... |
|
|
| (1205220) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 18 03:04:29 2013, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Feb 18 02:46:03 2013. And Trans Europa Express wasn't so butt ugly either. :) And Kraftwerk didn't seem to think so as well ... |
|
|
| (1205237) | |
TOO MUCH necroposting!!!! Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Mon Feb 18 10:43:18 2013, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 18 01:23:31 2013. Is there any reason why, as of late, there has been WAY TOO MUCH necroposting of posts more than a year old??? Both here and on Buschat!!!Yet another reason why I choose to be as scarce on this board as I have been!! Too much redundant chat, too much necroposting!!! |
|
|
| (1205238) | |
Re: TOO MUCH necroposting!!!! Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Mon Feb 18 10:49:49 2013, in response to TOO MUCH necroposting!!!! Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Mon Feb 18 10:43:18 2013. and this is a tragedy of immence proportion? grow up people.[ain`t gonna happen] |
|
|
| (1205240) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 18 10:51:11 2013, in response to TOO MUCH necroposting!!!! Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Mon Feb 18 10:43:18 2013. This is an update, not a necropost. Necroposts add zero value to an old thread, and this pic isn't worth a new thread. |
|
|
| (1205243) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Mon Feb 18 11:03:12 2013, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 18 10:51:11 2013. Then preface the original title with "UPDATE" or something like that. The way it was done, it's a necropost!! |
|
|
| (1205244) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Feb 18 11:06:28 2013, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Mon Feb 18 11:03:12 2013. No, it wasn't. Many people would never see his change to the subject line because they view the board compressed anyway. |
|
|
| (1205251) | |
Re: TOO MUCH necroposting!!!! Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Mon Feb 18 12:34:24 2013, in response to TOO MUCH necroposting!!!! Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Mon Feb 18 10:43:18 2013. Same applies to kew gardens, he's been necroposting as well. |
|
|
| (1205255) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Mon Feb 18 12:45:04 2013, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Feb 18 01:36:42 2013. I don't know if it's like so much as the structural requirements that drive the basic cab end design. |
|
|
| (1205256) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Feb 18 12:49:57 2013, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Feb 18 03:02:02 2013. Some paragons of aesthetics just ARE. The Iliad is still worth reading 2-3 thousand years later--not much published this year will be. |
|
|
| (1205258) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Feb 18 12:55:37 2013, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior, posted by Jace on Mon Feb 18 12:45:04 2013. ALP-46 avoided the look. |
|
|
| (1205259) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Feb 18 12:56:37 2013, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Feb 18 02:46:03 2013. It might be able to go 125mph...but automatic coupling? Forget about it! |
|
|
| (1205271) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Feb 18 14:10:15 2013, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Feb 18 12:49:57 2013. Not with that attitude it won't. |
|
|
| (1205273) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 18 14:16:59 2013, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior, posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Feb 18 12:56:37 2013. Diesel Alco DL-109s were geared for 120 mph. With the right balance, the E60 would have been able to do 120 mph as well; certainly had plenty of horsepower to do so. |
|
|
| (1205284) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Mon Feb 18 15:32:05 2013, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 exterior, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 18 01:23:31 2013. The Eurotrash keeps flowing onto American rails!! Sigh....... |
|
|
| (1205310) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 design |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Mon Feb 18 17:08:33 2013, in response to Amtrak's ACS-64 design, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Fri Jan 14 13:12:49 2011. New trains are as nice as some new cars etc, but I'm oldfashioned. I like Iron or steel with rivets than this composite stuff...Where's the Budd company when you need them? |
|
|
| (1205312) | |
Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 design |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Mon Feb 18 17:14:13 2013, in response to Re: Amtrak's ACS-64 design, posted by orange blossom special on Mon Feb 18 17:08:33 2013. Or how about ELECTRO-MOTIVE or GE to get us back in the "Made In The USA" proud mode of things???? |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 4 |
||
