From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 05-Jun-14 02:43, Glen Labah wrote:   
   > ... In the case of the listed subject though (the Talgos and an E   
   > unit), we are talking about F59s.  These are only 2240 kW.   
   >   
   > The Talgo trains only weigh in at about 250 tons or so.  The entire   
   > train is lighter than the locomotive + cab car used on them.   
      
   ... and that's mostly due to the FRA weight penalty.   
      
   OTOH, a P42DC puts out a lot more power than an F59 for about the same   
   weight; why don't they use one of those, rather than having special   
   locos just for the Talgo sets?   
      
   > For the older Talgos operating here, what is needed is a light weight   
   > 1,500 horsepower locomotive with four axles.  One of these could be   
   > put at each end of the older trains, producing 3,000 horsepower (2240   
   > kw) total, only spread over 8 axles to give good starting adhesion,   
   > and spreading the weight of the engine over more axles.   
   >   
   > The bad news is that nobody is going to want to produce such a   
   > locomotive.  The Talgos are uniquely light weight in the USA, so   
   > there will be little demand for such a light weight and low   
   > horsepower locomotive elsewhere.   
      
   There might be more demand for such once "modified Tier I" equipment   
   becomes common.   
      
   Even ignoring the volume issue, though, would there be enough savings in   
   cost/weight to make it a better option than a 2240kW (3000hp) loco at   
   one end and an unpowered unit at the other?  That cuts maintenance costs   
   nearly in half, though possibly at the expense of reliability.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)