Jump to content

Talk:GE P30CH

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feedback

[edit]

These weren't built as a result of dissatisfaction with the SDP40F as the article currently claims. Nor were they ordered after the initial 40 EMD's as claimed. They were ordered at a time when over 100 of the EMD's had already been delivered and more were on their way and their reputation was still largely intact with the oldest just a few months old.

They were bought for stopgap HEP service on Boston-New Haven trains until F40's arrived with Florida trains operated over the Seaboard Coast Line that commonly used GE power the ultimate destination for them. The SDP40F's were for long haul services and the 150 units ordered were adequate for those needs. These were cheaper, had some commonality with the new GE E60's that handled Florida trains in electrified territory along with Seaboard's U-Boat fleet, and would be ready in time for the Amfleets while the F40PH was under development to handle short haul services.

In fact when they were new, it was the ride quality of the GE's that was in question. The E60's were proving to be disappointing riders and these had the same trucks and Amtrak refused delivery initially. And even when they did, they cancelled their second order of 25.

SDP40F issues happened in the future. The F40PH wasn't designed to take their place and these GE's weren't ordered as a result of any problems. It just happened that way since the F40PH was the right locomotive in the right place at the right time. Beyond some complaints from crew members on rough track like on the Milwaukee Road in which the SDP40F's were deemed to be fine, the first hint of an issue was the Floridian derailment in October 1975. And it took several more incidents before the design was called into serious question during 1976. Yet the Pooches were ordered in 1974 and most had already been constructed when that derailment happened.

They predate Amtrak's SDP40F issues and Amtrak was quite happy with the EMD product at the time these were ordered.

  • Thanks for your feedback. Most of what you objected to was indeed added without sources over the last couple of months and I've removed it. I can't speak to Amtrak's attitudes toward the P30CH beyond the article in Pacific RailNews which says they weren't popular, but that's a retrospective view. Mackensen (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More about the P30CH's

[edit]

I corrected a few typos that I didn't catch when I wrote that.

Incidentally, not only was Amtrak concerned about their ride quality even before acceptance of the Pooches due to a derailment at speed during acceptance tests for the E60's, they were also saddled when they did enter service with the exact same speed restrictions as the SDP40F's later saw due to similar incidents on curves.

In case someone wonders why they weren't traded in and recycled like the SDP's, I don't know. Presumably there were too few of them and Amtrak was too dissatisfied with them to throw more money at GE so they hung on in service while the superior SDP40F's components that Amtrak was quite pleased with went into F40PHR's and lived on well after the Pooches all were scrapped. But I have nothing to back up that so it's just speculation.

Another thing that might come to mind when someone reads what I posted earlier is why didn't Amtrak just didn't convert some of their in-service SDP40F's for HEP Amfleet consists as needed. Amtrak's SDP fleet was busy on long-haul routes and furthermore, Amtrak unfortunately discovered before the Pooches entered service that the SDP's HEP wiring, installed at the time they were built to future proof them, was inadequate for the job and would have to be replaced.

The necessary rewiring that would have been needed due to that was expensive and made what was supposed to be an easy conversion a complicated and expensive task (Amtrak's E8's that saw HEP conversions around 1975 ran around $175,000 to provide an idea; much of which was just wiring cost). So what likely would've been a savior for the SDP's once the boiler water that was causing a high center of gravity was removed suddenly made a HEP conversion and an expensive overhaul as they came due prohibitively expensive and almost the price of a F40PH that was proving itself at the time. Combine that with the ride issues coming to light and their developing reputation for being derailment prone and it was an easy choice I suspect. A different spec of wiring though and the Amtrak and SDP40F story as we know it could have been significantly different.

And checking some references I have around here, Amtrak's early F40's came in at around $385,000 a unit after trade-in of a SDP (And $545,000 for the earliest without). The SDP40F's actually initially clocked in at approximately $450,000 each. But with the passage of a few years, inflation, the Pooches similarity with the E60's and Seaboard's GE's that was thought would drive maintenance costs down due to commonality (Seaboard maintained Amtrak's Florida fleet), and the cost of HEP in place of a steam generator, the Pooches $480,000 price tag was much economical on the surface than a follow-up HEP equipped order of SDP40F's would have been.

Issues of Trains Magazine from this time period can shed a lot of light on what was going on for anyone that is interested and wants to learn more. That's where much of what I said originated from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from someone less informed. What would the P30s be traded in for? C trucks were history for Amtrak, right? Maybe they, and the engines, could be traded in for freight service, but would GE want them?
I don't get the HEP problems, F40PHs have them, too. High engine speed at idle? Huh? Both BN Es and C&NW Fs later had gen sets for commuter service, E60s went both ways. What am I missing?
While I'm being ignorant, what's with the return to carbodies on the Genesis? Stupid name, too. Do any other Locos (anywhere) have official names? Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of something more suitable is probably one of the reasons why they didn't subsequently trade in the Pooches. I imagine, like I said up above, that their small number and Amtrak's general dissatisfaction with GE at the time also were factors why these kept rolling instead of Amtrak throwing more money at the problem to arrive with something more acceptable.

Not sure what the HEP issues are in reference to, but I assume it's something in the article. If it's in reference to the SDP40F's, it's because their pre-installed wiring for HEP ended up inadequate for the electrical loads so expensive rewiring would have been necessary to convert them to HEP instead of steam.

But carbodies I think I can answer. Amtrak like other passenger carriers preferred power that crew members could safely travel back & forth from the passenger consist as necessary and for access to the engine room while in transit which rules out a hood unit. There's also a styling element there if we dare use that word in reference to a Genesis. The only way a Genesis could be any less attractive would be with external walkways.

Then we have the restricted loading gauge to think about. These were designed to be able to go anywhere on the Amtrak system and also to be sold to NYC commuter operations, which the F40PH's couldn't do, which is a major reason why Amtrak and NYC commuter rail held on to FL-9's for years. Dedicating space for two external walkways would probably raise the height of the engine room section and/or lengthen the locomotive. A full body allows for a slightly more compact layout.

I imagine the monocoque design for a lighter and stronger locomotive also had a say in going with an appearance of a cowled locomotive. But I'm not an engineer so that's just conjecture. But I have trouble picturing the external body that supports loads being as easy to do were it a hood unit. But maybe that's just because I'm associating it with the truss layout in old cab units that was also load bearing unlike the conventional frame that we think of with freight power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that AMTRAK dumped the P30s as soon as possible, sounds like they ran them into the ground, then scrapped them. Apparently AMTRAK and GE have kissed and made up. Or is ugly GE’s revenge?
HEP: I missed that GE was using gen sets, while EMD was using a prime mover powered (second?) alternator after the SDPs. I thought I heard that some EMDs had to keep the engine speed up all the time. Trading SDPs in was probably more attractive than getting by with a gen set, especially since they were trying to get rid of C trucks. Did they ever really figure out what caused the SDP derailing?
I didn’t think of passage thru, but the conductor’s back there, I’m sure that OSHA would take a dim view of him leaning out a door and waving. And I thought that service on the road ended with the unreliable Wintons. Either way, think of the hearing protection needed.
I get the monocoque being stronger and lighter, but didn’t think that weight was an issue. Going back from truss E/Fs to ladder frame GP/SDs was sort of a step backward, even then. I would think that monocoque would have the same access problems, but maybe you don’t need to get large components out often. Or you could take a panel out, you do that in airplanes.
A side note, doing Winton/Cleveland/EMD, it turns out that ships, which seem similar to monoque to me, flex more than ladder frame trains, and need stiffer engines. Huh?
Thank you for your time.Sammy D III (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that they ran them into the ground, but they indeed got their money's worth out of them. They got the 15 years or so of life out of them that they aim for in a perfect world if budgets allowed them to retire equipment on schedule. They outlasted many of their freight cousins and continued rolling on Amtrak into the early 1990's. But Amtrak always has taken care of their power since failures obviously aren't desirable so they were in decent shape even when retired.

The reasons for trading in the SDP's were three fold. First, there was concern over their riding ability with restrictions in place and confidence in them shaken. And the earlier orders were already coming due for major rebuilds that would be expensive. And lastly, their pre-installed HEP wiring was inadequate and would have to be replaced.

It was such an expensive proposition that trading them in for general purpose F40PH's that could go anywhere except Hudson River tunnels was essentially free. The components had to be rebuilt either way and the trade-in savings, scrap value of what was left, and the savings in not having to strip out the HEP wiring and reinstall new wiring in a finished locomotive essentially covered the remaining cost for a F40PHR.

Most of Amtrak's F40PH's indeed drove an alternator off the main engine which meant they sounded like they were in run 8 even when standing still. The SDP's all had steam generators and this wasn't a factor. They could have easily been equipped to do the same thing and many of them did just that, albeit with their components now inside the carbody of a F40PH. It was the cost of rewiring them for HEP that ballooned the cost and led to their demise.

And there's plenty of stories of nursing engines en-route. It could be as simple as trying to restart an engine that has quit on you. It's not something you want to do from an outside walkway at a high rate of speed. Even freight locomotives like an SD40 before Dash 2 electronics came about, one can find many stories of a fireman spending most of his time at an ailing electrical cabinet inserting and removing wooden wedges to assist in transition due to faulty relays and such.

For a good example, Trains Magazine had a excellent article years ago of a NYC mechanical man that told stories of his time back in the 60's and his thoughts on the 5 different brands of diesel that the Central was running. Many of them involved riding an ailing consist of locomotives to check that a correction had actually corrected an issue, to diagnose a problem that was happening, or to assist in the event of a failure while en-route such as for locomotives on their first trip after delivery or after a major shopping.

And a monocoque frame on the Genesis was indeed there in part due to weight. Heavy locomotives and passenger train speeds often don't mix well so they like for weight to be kept down. It's one reason why the passenger U-Boats for instance didn't do so well for roads like Amtrak and the Santa Fe since they simply weighed so much. And GE had visions of an electrical counterpart of the Genesis so designed a carbody that could handle 150mph according to the proposal & requisition manager of the project at the time.

The biggest issue with a truss arrangement on a full body passenger locomotive is construction cost. It's why cowls came about since you had the economy thanks to the simplicity of a traditional frame yet still had the full width body.

And ship engines don't have the stresses of railroad engines. They don't suffer from flexing, the vibration, bumps, dirt, etc. It's why, for instance, that 20 cylinder 645's had early issues after a few years of service on railroads where as those on vessels like many American flagged Great Lakes freighters never had issues with crankshaft life, high bearing wear, and such on their 20 cylinder 645's. Much more stable platform aboard a ship that is far closer to running a engine in static test service on a dyno than life aboard a locomotive is for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, personal stuff. I’m not a believer, so selling this place, or giving advice, is pure irony. But I think you could go next door and punch the place up. You seem to have a lot of knowledge, and can pull up references. You don’t have to, of course, but you could, I’ve seen the far less informed write far more.
I buy all your history. I am surprised that locos only count on 15 years, busses are around 12, I think. I’m not going to look that up, but it is close. I don’t know the target for rapid transit cars, but they go longer than 15 for sure. Budget is always a problem, clearly.
I am surprised, and happy, that Amtrak can keep on top of maintenance. I would think that they have to fight very hard for every penny. I doubt that many legislators care much about the rails, or their customers, while riding in their limos to the airport.
We’re commuters here, gen sets are a dime a dozen, the Burlington used to put them in combines, and they work. Sort of simple, but in theory, I think they look wasteful. Why have an extra engine? AC motors work at different speeds, why can’t the alternator? I know very little about electricity.
As a truck driver I never had a wrench ride with me, ships always do, trains must be in between. Diagnose sounds good. A fireman with wooden wedges makes my hair stand on end, but back then we all did dangerous things, “part of the job”.
Weight vs. power is important everywhere, I think that train designs were old and clunky to put weight on the wheels for better traction. And of course money mattered, GM has NEVER tried anything that they didn’t think would make money. Computers control wheel-slip now, I guess. Yea, SD’s were for getting a heavy train moving, I think that twenty or something was when they’re not needed any more.
Genesis’s running in the tunnel would have to shut the engine off and use the third rail, right. 600V DC to whatever AC
I know I read that about ships somewhere, Winton, probably, but I’m not going to look for it. That HAS to be wrong, curved steel between bulkheads is a heavy monocoque, that can’t flex anything near a beam. I don’t see how long periods at high speed can be a problem, either, ships must always run at top designed speed, right? I have no knowledge of lakers, but they can’t need a burst of speed, unless U-boats show up by Cleveland. Maybe ugly currents, but it doesn’t sound right to me, you must have to run at peak efficiency.
Thanks, Sammy D III (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

15 years was widely held to be the standard during the diesel locomotive's 1st generation with switchers perhaps 5 to 10 more years of usefulness. Of course GP7's and such along with rebuild programs soon proved that 15 years was an underestimation for well maintained quality Class 1 freight power that still had useful assignments they were suited for (Unlike F units that weren't good for much else but mainline runs due to poor visibility for switching).

I imagine that 30 years is more like it these days although 15 years is still the length of lease for most leases and many locomotives are returned upon expiration. And of course we have 75 year old diesels out there still earning money that have never seen anything but routine maintenance.

For when you have the money, 15 years is still the gold standard where passenger carriers are concerned. Look at Go Transit for example or Amtrak's plans/wish list for the future in regards to retirement dates that they've published in recent years as they try to develop a strategy for future fleet acquisitions.

As far as I know, the Hudson River Tunnels & the East River tunnels are electrified. And I know they utilize 3rd rail and are banned from running in diesel mode in the Park Avenue tunnel to Grand Central.

And most ships run at a sustained speed for long periods of times which is also beneficial to engine life. The exceptions are in confined areas so Great Lakes ships don't get to much enjoy that benefit with tight rivers, locks, canals, and often short cargo runs. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seemed curious about how the SDP's would have been converted to HEP, they were designed to have two 375 kilowatt auxiliary diesel engine alternators outputting 480 volt three phase AC in place of their twin steam generators. During the transition period, they would carry one of each until the fleet was fully converted to HEP. All the necessary wiring was pre-installed at the time of manufacturer as I already said making for a quick and economical conversion to HEP.

But alas the wiring specification wasn't adequate like I already said. They had a amazing warranty which included a 10 year guarantee on wiring. But since the HEP wiring met specifications, rewiring would have been at Amtrak's expense since it was Amtrak's specification that was faulty rather than a EMD issue. 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some electrical engineer should have been fired, the numbers are very close. I am looking at commuters (F40C and F40PH) needing 500kw (670hp), for Amtrak (F40PH) upped to 800kw (1072hp). Two gen-sets would come out at 750kw (1005hp), that should have been close enough. If conversion to two gen-sets was designed in, and the electrical system was too small, someone’s calculator needed a new battery.
The interim one gen/one boiler deal makes little sense. 375kw (503hp) wouldn’t be close, even for commuters, I would think that half the steam wouldn’t be, either.
The trade-ins makes perfect sense, Chicago’s CTA did a similar thing in the 1950s. New PCC streetcars (some of me in that article) were scrapped and salvaged for rapid transit cars (CTA 6000s and 1-50s have some of me, too, if I can do it, you certainly can).
I used an on-line metric converter, but that shows 670hp taking 710hp from the prime mover. Huh? My source is The Diesel Spotter’s Guide Update, pages 72 and 76.
I am retired, that’s how I can answer so soon. If you have a real life, take your time, I’m not going anywhere. Thank you.Sammy D III (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone certainly must've gotten in trouble with the electrical specifications for the HEP system, I think it's safe to say.

Remember that the SDP's were for long haul services. That meant multiple units on a train unlike a short corridor train that might only have 1 locomotive. That meant that a 50/50 combination during that transition period could have still meet the demands for either type of power since the load could be spread across multiple locomotives and you would still be maintaining flexibility in the interim instead of dedicated steam and HEP locomotives. I believe that has since changed in more modern Amtrak locomotives but the P30CH's, the HEP power cars for non HEP equipped locomotive consists, the HEP converted E's, and the SDP's had they been converted would've had this trait. Not sure about the E60's though with their peculiar motor alternator setup where a motor fitted to the output of the transformer spun a shaft directly connected to a 480V alternator but I suspect they probably couldn't do this since they'd typically be 1 locomotive to a train. 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on GE P30CH. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GE P30CH. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GE_P30CH&oldid=1202233444"