Talk:GE P30CH

Feedback

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)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC) 

More about the P30CH's

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)