From: cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca   
      
   On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 07:58:59 -0700 (PDT), rcp27g@gmail.com wrote:   
      
   >On Tuesday, 3 June 2014 14:20:24 UTC+2, Clark F Morris  wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 01:58:12 -0700 (PDT), rcp27g@gmail.com wrote:   
   >   
   >> > If an E unit is your baseline (2400 hp in 140 tons), then you don't need   
   >> > to go very far to do an awful lot better.  The British HST power cars from   
   >> > the 1970s had approximately the same installed power in half the weight   
   >> > (2250 hp in 70 tons).  The Class 67 from the late 1990s manages 3200 hp in   
   >> > 90 tons.  In both cases, these are designed for 125 mph.  The Class 68   
   >> > Eurolight being deliverd today in the UK has 3800 hp in 85 tons (though   
   >> > only rated for 100 mph).  These are all 4 axle locomotives.   
   >>   
   >> The advantage of the E unit is that it exists TODAY   
   >   
   >The last one rolled off the production line over 50 years ago.  Today, they   
   are museum pieces.   
   >   
   >>, has passenger   
   >> gearing, is easier on the tracks than other US locomotives and can be   
   >> run in the US without special permission.  For new service, I would   
   >> like any of the above mentioned locomotives but they would get heavier   
   >> (see the new Siemens locomotives for Midwest high speed) due to the   
   >> FRA.  I didn't realize it was 140 tons.  The 6 axles are the saving   
   >> grace for the purpose of lower forces on the curves an the ride was   
   >> said to be excellent.   
   >   
   >I'm sure compared with the steam locomotives they were replacing, they were   
   great and easy on the track and all that, but the world has come along way   
   since then.  If you want to run a serious day-in-day-out service, you really   
   want to be using    
   equipment that is younger than half a century (of which much is likely to have   
   been spent with questionable maintenance).  Bear in mind the E-units achieved   
   their "high" power output with two prime movers, while modern locomotives   
   producing 50% more    
   output at half the weight do so with a single engine, singificantly reducing   
   running costs.   
      
   My hope was not to have E units for ongoing services for the reasons   
   you mention, it was to use them to see if a locomotive with a lighter   
   axle load than the new Siemens for the Midwest services would be   
   better for the Talgos on curves.  I believe that all of the current   
   North American passenger locomotives are too heavy but getting a   
   European one in for testing would cumbersome at best.  Hence using the   
   museum or special train E units to TEST the theory seemed a good way   
   to do it.  For ongoing work, a locomotive proposed by Talgo or   
   locomotives built to the latest UIC specifications only with North   
   American couplers, etc. and North American PTC (ugh) instead of ERTMS   
   would be the way to go.   
      
   Clark Morris   
   >   
   >Robin   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)