Passenger Trains > Sc-44 v ALC-42 v P42 Performance Data

I'm curious about the difference between the two versions of the Chargers (including vs each other) and the P42's - in terms of acceleration rates, tonnage ratings, maximum continuous continuous tractive effort, how much horsepower to the rail is reduced when in full HEP mode, etc.

What would also be particularly interesting would be comparative performance metrics on the exact same route with the same number of locomotives and consist.  

Any such objective data is welcome (plenty of "subjective data" already abounds on this site and elsewhere on line - such as "these locomotives are junk" or are ugly, blah blah blah....)

Reliabilty?  Data on which locomotive is currently more reliable?

Without any knowledge of data, it would seem the P42s are more reilable right now than the new ALC-44s.

ALC42 -
140 Tons
Tractive Effort 65,195 lb
Horsepower 4200
HEP 1000 KW
DEF Capacity 260 Gallons
Fuel Capacity 2200 Gallons


SC44
135 Tons
Tractive Effort 65,195 lbs
Horsepower 4400 (usually only loads 4250 or so on most units)
HEP Capacity 660 KW
DEF Capacity 190 Gallons
Fuel Capacity 1800 Gallons

P42
134 Tons
Horsepower 4250
Providing HEP 3650
HEP 800 KW
Fuel Capacity 2200 Gallons
Time from idle to full horsepower, 53 seconds while providing HEP, a little longer when not.

Chargers load full horsepower from idle to 8 usually in 20 seconds or so, much quicker than the GEs do.

Posted from iPhone

2904 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ALC42 -
> 140 Tons
> Tractive Effort 65,195 lb
> Horsepower 4200
> HEP 1000 KW
> DEF Capacity 260 Gallons
> Fuel Capacity 2200 Gallons
>
>
> SC44
> 135 Tons
> Tractive Effort 65,195 lbs
> Horsepower 4400 (usually only loads 4250 or so on
> most units)
> HEP Capacity 660 KW
> DEF Capacity 190 Gallons
> Fuel Capacity 1800 Gallons
>
> P42
> 134 Tons
> Horsepower 4250
> Providing HEP 3650
> HEP 800 KW
> Fuel Capacity 2200 Gallons
> Time from idle to full horsepower, 53 seconds
> while providing HEP, a little longer when not.
>
> Chargers load full horsepower from idle to 8
> usually in 20 seconds or so, much quicker than the
> GEs do.
>
> Posted from iPhone

How long did it take a F40PH to go from Idle to Run 8?

It’s been a minute since I’ve run an F40 but it was comparable to a Charger, the biggest difference is they also lose horsepower when running HEP, 600 HP, similar to a P42. So an F40 only loads up to about 2400 HP, whereas a charger is 1800-2000 horsepower more. The Cummins QSK95s are impressive, I’ve only been stranded once by one blowing a cylinder out of the side of the engine block… however that’s never happened to me on a GE or EMD.

Posted from iPhone

> Chargers load full horsepower from idle to 8 usually
> in 20 seconds or so, much quicker than the GEs do.

Yes, the Chargers cover a standing-start mile a few
seconds quicker than a GE, but that's not saying much.
So far I haven't seen a Charger do any better than an F40.

I never got a chance to check them, but I'm guessing
the champs are the NJ Transit AC-motor EMDs --
forget what they're called. (Alstom PL42ACs, says Wikipedia.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/23 14:01 by timz.

Chargers out perform them all in acceleration, there is no way around it. F40s are particularly sluggish above 50 mph, chargers seem to be the same. The best consist to run a is charger in the lead and then a GE, chargers get the thing moving and then by the time the GE is loading 100% horsepower it pushes the charger into space. The chargers blended brake is superior to GEs aswell in terms of being more smooth and user friendly, not that I like using it, but it is nice when weather conditions require it. I don’t have figures in front of me, but from experience running a charger on a territory versus a P42 is a night and day difference. In some cases for a single engine consist involving an uphill gradient the difference is hitting track speed more than a mile or so sooner on a charger.

Posted from iPhone

Just as a passenger, these comments on the Charger square up to my perceptions back in the cars. They did not seem to be particularly faster off the block from a dead stop (and that's perhaps just train handling for a smooth and progressive start), but once they have a consist moving the acceleration difference is noticeable. They particularly seem to have considerable acceleration capacity in the mid-range speeds. Several times in recent trips behind one we slowed for a signal, a diamond or crossover, and then throttled back up. The mid-range acceleration was impressive. Even more impressive, was mid-range acceleration after a speed reduction that wasn't as slow as taking a crossover, but perhaps for a curve, and then the acceleration out of the reduction. Quite impressive.

Noticed it particularly on the Wolverine eastbound just last Thursday 3/2 in southwestern Michigan, which is 110 mph territory on Amtrak's Michigan Line route from Chicago to Detroit and Pontiac. We slowed to about 60 at one point. The acceleration out of that restriction back to near 110 was very impressive, and definitely stronger than I can recall with one of the GE P42s. That kind of mid-range acceleration capacity can have a real impact on schedule planning and timing, and schedule keeping.

The jury is still out, and will be for some time to come, on the ultimate success of these engines. But as their teething pains (some quite serious, yes) are worked through (as increasingly they seem to be), they seem up to the job. The long term will tell the final story. But for now, I think they look promising.

MC



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/23 09:58 by ironmtn.

The general concensus I've come away with is that that Charger is a potentially sound locomotive.  They have great hardware, and the majority of the problems have been with the software.  If and when those bugs can be isolated and fixed, they have great potential.

The first time I rode behind one, I was impressed.  The train eased out of town and through an area where there wasn't much in the way of acceleration due to speed limits.  Then the train cleared the speed restriction and got on the mainline... and I FELT the acceleration.  It was a very noticable thing, as I never actually felt the acceleration with a GE leading.  Being used to NOT feeling made its presence really stand out.

I'll back up what 2904 posted about the combination of a Charger and a P42; with that pair online and pulling the train, it accelerates like a rocket!

Mary McPherson
Dongola, IL
Diverging Clear Productions

timz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
(SNIP)
>
> I never got a chance to check them, but I'm
> guessing
> the champs are the NJ Transit AC-motor EMDs --
> forget what they're called. (Alstom PL42ACs, says
> Wikipedia.)

The NJ Transit PL42AC units are very fast accelerators.  For a while several were assigned to the North Jersey Coast Line with its combination of mostly flat track and some running on the NEC.

I wonder if Amtrak would be interested in buying them when NJT puts them up for sale?

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> timz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> (SNIP)
> >
> > I never got a chance to check them, but I'm
> > guessing
> > the champs are the NJ Transit AC-motor EMDs --
> > forget what they're called. (Alstom PL42ACs,
> says
> > Wikipedia.)
>
> The NJ Transit PL42AC units are very fast
> accelerators.  For a while several were assigned
> to the North Jersey Coast Line with its
> combination of mostly flat track and some running
> on the NEC.
>
> I wonder if Amtrak would be interested in buying
> them when NJT puts them up for sale?

Very interesting to hear about the mid-range acceleration on the Chargers - about to make my first trip behind one this Friday on Amtrak’s Hiawatha Service - accelerating away from Western Ave and then again north of Tower A5 will be interesting…

Posted from iPhone

Also - didn’t realize that HEP does not detract from traction horsepower on the Chargers - thought it was parasitic like on the F40PH’s and P42s. (Again partially explains the quick acceleration with such a high power to weight ratio).

Posted from iPhone

> didn’t realize that HEP does not detract
> from traction horsepower on the Chargers

It doesn't? Where does it come from?

timz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > didn’t realize that HEP does not detract
> > from traction horsepower on the Chargers
>
> It doesn't? Where does it come from?

No idea - just assumed the people making the posts above had actual knowledge of that when they deducted about 600 hp from the P42 making HEP (down from 4,250 to 3,650) but did not deduct any hp from an ALC42 or an SC44 making HEP - I also understand that the Vhargers do not have a separate engine fending the HEP like an F59 or an MP-36C...

Hopefully someone on here can clarify - because I'd be curious to know,

2904 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
 The Cummins QSK95s
> are impressive, I’ve only been stranded once by
> one blowing a cylinder out of the side of the
> engine block… however that’s never happened to
> me on a GE or EMD.
>
> Posted from iPhone

Not surprising, since the QSK-95 is a high-speed diesel engine (1500-1800rpm) and the traditional EMD and GE prime movers are medium speed (600-900rpm) .
High-speed diesel engines have never fared well in mainline North American railroading. It will be interesting to see how they last in this application.

Alco251 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2904 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>  The Cummins QSK95s
> > are impressive, I’ve only been stranded once
> by
> > one blowing a cylinder out of the side of the
> > engine block… however that’s never happened
> to
> > me on a GE or EMD.
> >
> > Posted from iPhone
>
> Not surprising, since the QSK-95 is a high-speed
> diesel engine (1500-1800rpm) and the traditional
> EMD and GE prime movers are medium speed
> (600-900rpm) .
> High-speed diesel engines have never fared well in
> mainline North American railroading. It will be
> interesting to see how they last in this
> application.

Plenty of pistons have made their way through the blocks of traditional locomotives diesels.  While the OP may not have seen this occurrence, it happens.  EMD's, GE's and Alco's.  I have no personal experience with the products of FM or BLW but I bet they were not immune either.

Just a guess but I would bet the drawback with the QSK will be more of a life between overhaul issue rater than a block/piston problem.  

So today I had my first run behind an SC-44 in Hiawatha Service - Chicago to Milwaukee - and WOW - the acceleration was noticeably much faster than any diesel hauled train I've ever ridden behind (I have thousands of miles behind E8's, E9's, F40PH's, F40C's, MP36's, F59's, P32's and P42's).

HOWEVER - the HiWATHA had an SC-44 at each end with one amfleet or former metroliner car and 4 Horizn Fleet cars - and I'm not sure whether both SC-44's were propelling the train or just one of them (does anyone know the answer to this - would seem like a waste of fuel for both to be pulling/pushing at the same time for such a light train - but either way only electric propelled trains have accelerated faster than what I rode today). 

1218fantrip Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> timz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > didn’t realize that HEP does not detract
> > > from traction horsepower on the Chargers
> >
> > It doesn't? Where does it come from?
>
> No idea - just assumed the people making the posts
> above had actual knowledge of that when they
> deducted about 600 hp from the P42 making HEP
> (down from 4,250 to 3,650) but did not deduct any
> hp from an ALC42 or an SC44 making HEP - I also
> understand that the Vhargers do not have a
> separate engine fending the HEP like an F59 or an
> MP-36C...
>
> Hopefully someone on here can clarify - because
> I'd be curious to know,

Well, I don't know these engines, but some locomotives I do know have a more powerful diesel engine than the drive train accepts. So accelerating does not parasitize on HEP and power for driving cooler fans, air compressor etc.
Same logic you don't have 4,200 or so horsepower in your HEP system at stand still or while coasting.