Canadian Railroads > Idle Question About VIA F40PH-3s

As built (like the Amtrak and commute varieties of F40PHs), the VIA Rail F40PHs (originally classified I believe as "F40PH-2s?") when not in HEP Mode, such as the lead unit of a 2-unit consist (where it's traditional for the 2nd unit to run at Notch 8 RPMs to provide HEP)...would IDLE at Notch 2 RPMs, UNLESS the "Low Idle Selector Switch" on the back wall was flipped (which also had to be placed in "Normal Idle" for the unit to have traction capability).

So I'm wondering now that they've been rebuilt to "F40PH-3s," and with seperate HEP gen-sets, if in fact the VIA F40s still idle at Notch Two RPMs under all conditions now when NOT in HEP Mode (which of course now is irrelevant to the prime mover), and, the Dash Three aspect I'd THINK might come into play?

Have always wondered why ANY of the F40s had this normal Idle at Notch 2 RPMs in the first place, but guess I can think of several reasons? First, GP/SD60s (sort of a "Dash Three" unit), and later power such as SD70Ms/SD70Is/SD75Is/SD70M-2s/SD70ACes all rev up to Notch 2/Notch 3 RPMS for either "Low Air Pressure States" and/or the "Cool Down Cycle." Would think that with Dash Three electricals, running the F40s continuously at Notch 2 RPMs would be totally unnecessary and a waste of FUEL. And I'm only guessing that the things were built this way in the "40-Series Era" before the computers could automatically rev the prime movers for said states? And I'm only guessing here, but can't think of ANY other reason? As the EMD Amtrak SDP40Fs did NOT. (And PLEASE do not get "HEP Mode Notch 8 Idle" CONFUSED with the "Normal Notch 2 IDLE Speed" of a unit ***NOT*** in HEP Mode!!!). I do NOT need--nor does the audience need--a repititous explanation of why in single-unit ops--VIA Rail units used to race away in Notch EIGHT RPMs to power the HEP Alternator!!! I understand this!!! Am ONLY talking about the Notch 2 RPM rather fast Idle in "Normal/Non-HEP Mode." And if this has been REMOVED now that the units have been rblt into "Dash 3s???"

With all of the "conditions" you've imposed on the answers you will accept, it's not surprising no one has answered.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With all of the "conditions" you've imposed on the
> answers you will accept, it's not surprising no
> one has answered.

I guess that you are right. That it is too hard to ask those in Canada whether their rebuilt VIA F40PH-3s idle like the SD40-2s of old (or current), or, like every single F40PH ever delivered from EMD (and UNLIKE any OTHER EMD ever delivered in the history of the company) in an acclerated Notch 2 RPM Fashion which any MORON could notice, or trackside observer would note the difference between. As that constitutes "Too many conditions" for the average person to notice (and, to think, I was only trying to provide a bit of HISTORY for the various EMD models...my BAD...I reckon???). Sorry to have bothered you, PHall.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/14 19:57 by Red.

Didn't bother me, just making an observation.

More to the point, my understanding is that adding seperate HEP generators to the rebuilt F40PH's is more fuel efficient.

GO Transit and other commuter operations had seperate HEP generators from the start. Anyone know why Amtrak and Via chose to have HEP supplied from the prime mover? Other passenger train operators have chosen HEP cars hauled by locomotives.

Do you think the "Thunder Wagon" (original nickname for F40's) was an EMD concept or Amtrak's?

eminence_grise Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More to the point, my understanding is that adding
> seperate HEP generators to the rebuilt F40PH's is
> more fuel efficient.
>
> GO Transit and other commuter operations had
> seperate HEP generators from the start. Anyone
> know why Amtrak and Via chose to have HEP supplied
> from the prime mover? Other passenger train
> operators have chosen HEP cars hauled by
> locomotives.
>
> Do you think the "Thunder Wagon" (original
> nickname for F40's) was an EMD concept or
> Amtrak's?

I think that the idea to have prime-mover drive HEP for the F40PHs was both EMD & GE. But notice that Amtrak got the old GE P30CH "Pooches" (6-axle) with Detroit Diesels about the same time, and to this day Amtrak seems to like prime mover-driven HEP (such as on the GE P42DCs). That's a running debate as to which is more "fuel efficient," I think. As some commute agencies order their Wabtec/MPI MP36PHs & MP40PHs with prime mover-driven HEP (but with an much-newer version, with inverter control that doesn't require full-time wide-open throttle), while others desire theirs with separate HEP GenSets (and I think lots of times, this more in the case of those operators that tend towards single-unit ops and want every ounce of HP for traction). My understanding, however, is that in LD/Intercity ops, it is indeed more fuel efficient for the locos to have prime mover-drive HEP, when the locos will be spending more time at higher throttle positions anyway. Arguments on both sides. But still wonder why the F40PHs of all varieties used to (and I've yet to hear one yet) that idles in Notch 2 RPMs even in Non-HEP Mode???

Red Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eminence_grise Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > More to the point, my understanding is that
> adding
> > seperate HEP generators to the rebuilt F40PH's
> is
> > more fuel efficient.
> >
> > GO Transit and other commuter operations had
> > seperate HEP generators from the start. Anyone
> > know why Amtrak and Via chose to have HEP
> supplied
> > from the prime mover? Other passenger train
> > operators have chosen HEP cars hauled by
> > locomotives.
> >
> > Do you think the "Thunder Wagon" (original
> > nickname for F40's) was an EMD concept or
> > Amtrak's?
>
> I think that the idea to have prime-mover drive
> HEP for the F40PHs was both EMD & GE. But notice
> that Amtrak got the old GE P30CH "Pooches"
> (6-axle) with Detroit Diesels about the same time,
> and to this day Amtrak seems to like prime
> mover-driven HEP (such as on the GE P42DCs).
> That's a running debate as to which is more "fuel
> efficient," I think. As some commute agencies
> order their Wabtec/MPI MP36PHs & MP40PHs with
> prime mover-driven HEP (but with an much-newer
> version, with inverter control that doesn't
> require full-time wide-open throttle), while
> others desire theirs with separate HEP GenSets
> (and I think lots of times, this more in the case
> of those operators that tend towards single-unit
> ops and want every ounce of HP for traction). My
> understanding, however, is that in LD/Intercity
> ops, it is indeed more fuel efficient for the
> locos to have prime mover-drive HEP, when the
> locos will be spending more time at higher
> throttle positions anyway. Arguments on both
> sides. But still wonder why the F40PHs of all
> varieties used to (and I've yet to hear one yet)
> that idles in Notch 2 RPMs even in Non-HEP Mode???

Red,

The first prime mover driven HEP units were the NJ DOT/EL U34CH's from 1970. The 34's were really the first U36C's. They developed 3430 HP.

However, the fans regular quote/repeat inaccurate data. It is often said that 170 HP was for HEP draw which is rediculously low. The real story is that at the rpm's need to get the proper cycle, 3430 was what the FDL16 could deliver. This left about 2700 for traction with a long train.

Posted from Android

NYSWSD70M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Red Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > eminence_grise Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > More to the point, my understanding is that
> > adding
> > > seperate HEP generators to the rebuilt
> F40PH's
> > is
> > > more fuel efficient.
> > >
> > > GO Transit and other commuter operations had
> > > seperate HEP generators from the start.
> Anyone
> > > know why Amtrak and Via chose to have HEP
> > supplied
> > > from the prime mover? Other passenger train
> > > operators have chosen HEP cars hauled by
> > > locomotives.
> > >
> > > Do you think the "Thunder Wagon" (original
> > > nickname for F40's) was an EMD concept or
> > > Amtrak's?
> >
> > I think that the idea to have prime-mover drive
> > HEP for the F40PHs was both EMD & GE. But
> notice
> > that Amtrak got the old GE P30CH "Pooches"
> > (6-axle) with Detroit Diesels about the same
> time,
> > and to this day Amtrak seems to like prime
> > mover-driven HEP (such as on the GE P42DCs).
> > That's a running debate as to which is more
> "fuel
> > efficient," I think. As some commute agencies
> > order their Wabtec/MPI MP36PHs & MP40PHs with
> > prime mover-driven HEP (but with an much-newer
> > version, with inverter control that doesn't
> > require full-time wide-open throttle), while
> > others desire theirs with separate HEP GenSets
> > (and I think lots of times, this more in the
> case
> > of those operators that tend towards
> single-unit
> > ops and want every ounce of HP for traction).
> My
> > understanding, however, is that in LD/Intercity
> > ops, it is indeed more fuel efficient for the
> > locos to have prime mover-drive HEP, when the
> > locos will be spending more time at higher
> > throttle positions anyway. Arguments on both
> > sides. But still wonder why the F40PHs of all
> > varieties used to (and I've yet to hear one
> yet)
> > that idles in Notch 2 RPMs even in Non-HEP
> Mode???
>
> Red,
>
> The first prime mover driven HEP units were the NJ
> DOT/EL U34CH's from 1970. The 34's were really
> the first U36C's. They developed 3430 HP.
>
> However, the fans regular quote/repeat inaccurate
> data. It is often said that 170 HP was for HEP
> draw which is rediculously low. The real story is
> that at the rpm's need to get the proper cycle,
> 3430 was what the FDL16 could deliver. This left
> about 2700 for traction with a long train.
>
> Posted from Android

I agree, yes you're right. Just as the original P40DCs were reduced off the bat to 3650 HP when in HP Mode (not sure what the figure is for the P42DCs, but figure a hundred or two more HP). But for the same reason.

Still trying to figure out if the VIA Rail F40PH-3s idle like an SD40-2, or, like all the rest of F40s at Notch 2 RPMs when not under HEP Load (not that it matters any longer with their separate HEP GenSets)...LOL...