Notice to all visitors and members of the Train-Sim.Com message forums: If you plan on using a signature banner in your posts, we would like to remind you that there is a maximum size for banners. That maximum is 450 pixels wide by 120 pixels high, and not to exceed 25k. Your compliance is appreciated. FORUM RULES Problems? There are two common reasons for problems with logging in and posting messages. The first is that you are running a firewall that prevents your messages from being sent to the server. The other is that you have cookies disabled; the DCForum software requires cookies to work properly.
RE: Is there such a thing..., shoskins, Oct-02-03, 05:00 PM, (1) RE: Is there such a thing..., chucksc, Oct-02-03, 05:08 PM, (3) RE: Is there such a thing..., shoskins, Oct-02-03, 07:23 PM, (5) RE: Is there such a thing..., chucksc, Oct-02-03, 09:10 PM, (6) RE: Is there such a thing..., chucksc, Oct-02-03, 05:01 PM, (2) RE: Is there such a thing..., Matt Vince, Oct-02-03, 06:21 PM, (4) RE: Is there such a thing..., chucksc, Oct-02-03, 09:18 PM, (7) RE: Is there such a thing..., sd70mac666, Oct-02-03, 10:12 PM, (8) RE: Is there such a thing..., Matt Vince, Oct-03-03, 04:36 PM, (9) RE: Is there such a thing..., LIRR_426, Oct-03-03, 07:19 PM, (10)
No, there is no such thing in real life. That is a fantasy drawing.They used to have (may still....) a P42 Genesis B-unit.They also had at one time a P40 in Long Island Rail Road livery, it looked sort of like one of the earlier FA liveries on LIRR, the light grey body with blue stripe and yellow ends. It was even numbered 701.
>No, there is no such thing in real life. That is a fantasy >drawing. > >They used to have (may still....) a P42 Genesis B-unit. > >They also had at one time a P40 in Long Island Rail Road >livery, it looked sort of like one of the earlier FA >liveries on LIRR, the light grey body with blue stripe and >yellow ends. It was even numbered 701. That is an urban myth as there was never a P40/P42 "B" unit. Also the MN Genesis #701 in LIRR colors was actually a P32acDM testing dual mode operation on the LIRR. The test was successfull but the LIRR chose to buy DE30ACs (which proceeded to fall apart on arrival) for political reasons....Chuck Schneider (Virtual) CEO North American (Virtual) Locomotive Works
>>No, there is no such thing in real life. That is a fantasy >>drawing. >> >>They used to have (may still....) a P42 Genesis B-unit. >> >>They also had at one time a P40 in Long Island Rail Road >>livery, it looked sort of like one of the earlier FA >>liveries on LIRR, the light grey body with blue stripe and >>yellow ends. It was even numbered 701. > >That is an urban myth as there was never a P40/P42 "B" unit. I may have worded it wrong...that site that was linked had a FANTASY DRAWING of the B-unit. My apologies if Imisled anyone into thinking that a 'real" one was built. It was NOT. Only a fantasy drawing. >Also the MN Genesis #701 in LIRR colors was actually a >P32acDM testing dual mode operation on the LIRR. No, the drawing I mentioned of "LIRR 701" was JUST a drawing submitted to the "paintshop" web site. It was NOT an official drawing from GE, it was NOT a drawing of a test unit. It was PURE FANTASY. I know for sure, as *I* was the one who did it!!! It was drawn way before Metro North had even ordered their dual-mode Genesis units. (Besides, M-N units are NOT numbered 700's; they are 200-231.)
So shoot me for getting the number wrong. But I also know for a fact, or at least it was widely reported, that LIRR tested some MN-CtDOT Genesis IIs when they were trying to decide about dual mode diesels or not.... I remember there was some issue with the 3rd rail similar to that with FL9s that supposedly tested on LIRR - something about over-running vs under-running 3rd rail on LIRR vs MN lines or the other way around, I forget which is what at this time of night..... That whole process led them (LIRR) to decide to go ahead with the Dual Mode diesel plan. But, they picked the GM built DE/DM series instead of the Gennies and have rued the day ever since....Chuck Schneider (Virtual) CEO North American (Virtual) Locomotive Works
>as a EP42 aka an electric powered P42 engine? >There is a drawing of one here >http://paintshop.railfan.net/images/blieberg/ep42.html In a word, No!That drawing was of a feasibility study done by SEPTA and Pa. DOT who were looking for a way to run Keystone Service without an Engine Change at either Phila. 30th St. or Harrisburg. This was never funded as the added expense of handling the High Voltage AC vice the Low Voltage DC of the MN/Ct. DOT locos made it economically impractical so it never went any further. Basically they looked at the Genesis IIs (P32acDM) used by Metro-North and Ct-DOT and liked the concept. However MN is 3rd rail 650v DC and the Keystone route is 11kv 25hz AC so the solution requires a transformer and some serious rectifiers and the cooling for both. Also the MN/Ct-DOT engines are only designed to run on 3rd rail until they are out of the tunnels in NYC and can legally startup their diesels. This is probably less than 1/2 hour where the Keystone service would run all the way to Harrisburg or at least Philly.... This is mainly a diesel engine with the ability to run "SHORT" distances on 3rd rail. FWIW, the MN engines do have a problem with Inverter overheating if they stay on 3rd rail too long..... Sorry, but it is a neat looking engine.Chuck Schneider (Virtual) CEO North American (Virtual) Locomotive Works
Interesting concept though, Chuck. It's a well known principle that you cannot (yet) have locomotives or MUs which can run on diesel power and High-Voltage AC OHLE, indeed, the only locomotive I can recall as having run off diesel fuel and AC overhead in it's lifetime was the British Railways (Western Region) Gas-Turbine locomotive 18100 of 1951, which took about a year to convert, and it was a one-way trip (It was renumbered E2001, and used as a 25kV AC prototype after conversion). Not exactly practical. To my knowledge, only GM's FL-9, GE's P32AC-DM and English Electric's Class 73 are true dual-mode locomotives, the last of these distinctly skewed towards electric power, the diesel engine being used for switching in yards and for when the 'juice' unintentionally goes off. In addition, some of the SNCF TER X73500 Diesel MUs are being given pantographs, but only capable of running off 1.5kV DC overhead.However, just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it isn't possible. But the Locomotive is the wrong way to go about solving this. An MU is probably a better bet, you have more cars in which to spread the 'kit'. I believe Siemens is working on such a concept, as a replacement for the 'Intercity 125' diesel trains, for the UK market. These look like they will have a diesel engine at either end, with power to all cars through a high-voltage AC power line running the length of the train. The traction motors will be in the cars, distributed throughout the train. As it's using high-voltage AC from alternator to motors, this makes running off OHLE, as opposed to using the diesel engines, technically probable, indeed, certain companies have stated their interest in a dual-mode train, particularly as one route will involve considerable distances 'under the wires', the 'status quo' of running diesels under the wires for some 400 miles (in certain cases), particularly with older trains such as the 'Intercity 125', means that fuel costs are higher, and savings can be made by running dual-mode trains. As I said earlier, the MU is probably the best way to build a high-voltage AC OHLE/on-board diesel-powered train.
Good Info Matt. The real answer tho is that it has not been done, successfully, yet... Note the P32s and the FL9s are Diesel Engines capable of running on 3rd rail DC for relatively short distances and with performance restrictions... In the case of the FL9s they heat up and catch fire in the case of the P32s the Inverters overheat and the locomotive goes into "fail-safe" and shuts down. Both are also limited by rule, due to excessive arcing, to 60mph when on 3rd Rail power....European style EMUs/DMUs are not feasible in the US where, due to the US practice of mixing high volume freight and passenger traffic on the same tracks at the same time, the USDOT/FRA has mandated extremely strong buffer-strength/compression standards that tend to darn near double the weight of the unit over the equivalent European spec. units.... Chuck Schneider (Virtual) CEO North American (Virtual) Locomotive Works
I'm lost lol not too uncommon though Dr. SatanI'm otherwise known as the SatanTrainI (was the one who) dragged your big assed dirty robbed car out of that ditch:
Any kind of dual-mode locomotive will face problems of too much equipment in too little space, although the EE Class 73 may have solved this by being skewed towards the electric power, the prime mover being only 600hp, whereas the maximum power on third rail being 3000hp. The maximum speed of the type is 90mph. These locomotives were designed to haul 8 or 12 coach 'express' trains along what is one of the busiest main routes in the UK, London Waterloo to Southampton, Bournemouth and Weymouth, as well as performing freight duties. I say 'busiest', it is, like the Hudson line, third rail electrified, and has a very busy schedule of commuter trains. For the first 50 miles or so it is also four-track. The FL-9s and P32acDMs seem to be problematic, perhaps a more sensible dual-mode solution would be to use MU technology, such as DC motors, running at DC voltages (such as using 600V DC in the supply circuit), this way the control circuitry can be very simple, and derived from MU technology. This would, however, result in a very non-standard design, something which would put costs up considerably, if the manufacturers were to even consider it.As for the Siemens plan, I believe the idea could be transferable to FRA requirements, as the 'HST-2' (as it has been dubbed) will not be an MU in the sense of a commuter MU, but more akin to the original HST plan, in that it would appear, to the uninformed, like a train with a locomotive at either end (prime movers of some 3000hp are suggested). What is different is that the passenger cars are motorised, like an MU, running off the electricity supplied by the prime movers at either end. This way you get a massive combined tractive effort, resulting in good acceleration. How this would play out in the USA is for debate, although I'd suggest using 'JetTrain' locomotives as the prime movers, with the end passenger cars fitted with pantographs, and a through-train line to supply the motors, like rolling Acela and JetTrain into one. Why it would have to be an MU is because unless a return to A-B units is proposed, the only way to make it economical is to run as permanently-coupled trainsets, with all required enclosed in the MU (this is because roof-mounted high-voltage feeder cables, like the TGV, are required).
