So is this the regular-adhesion-excursion-line equivalent of the Mt. Washington Cog Railway going biodiesel--a "genset" switcher on a "heritage" excursion train on the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic??

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=366000

Not only that, check out the electronic crossing bell! :)

Are we supposed to take issue with this?

Seems like a logical choice for the CVSR.

They have a people-hauling business in an area with multiple attractions, and theybsupport visiting steam when feasible. if a green unit works for them, and makes ecnomic sense, good for them. it may be a model for the future.

i think it's great!

Rob

At the present time there are some tax incentive programs that make the procurement of this kind of locomotive quite attractive, and the technology of multiple engine applications to switching and roadswitching locomotives is progressing steadily.

PC

First, props to one of our Akron RR Club's "young guns", Richie Thompson, for the great photo at North St. You will hear and see more from him in coming years.

I want to echo RJD. The CVSR is primarily a people-moving operation in the third most-visited National Park. That this way of travel in the Cuyahoga Valley is possible AND THRIVING since it's start with ex-GTW Mike #4070 and Summer to Fall weekend only service in 1975 is noteworthy (thumb through the tourist railroad and museum guide for that year and count the fallen flags). The CVSR is the biggest passenger railroad in Ohio - far outstripping Amtrak's middle-of-the-night ridership figures (closing in on 200K annual ridership), and Akron Northside is the busiest rail passenger station in the state with TEN arrivals and departures on Summer weekend days, when the Canton train is running.

I think you're going to see more of this pragmatism on the CVSR, like the deal with the owner of the FL9, and the borrowing of Jerry Jacobson's F40's for the Polar Expresses. It's great being a mostly ALCO road, but the FPA4's are well over 50 years old and showing their age, as are the hood units and HEP cars (heck, I was musing the other day with a friend that the first SD40's are closing in on 50 years old!). I can envision a day when the ALCO's become special occasion only power.

As for the modern grade crossing protection, the line from Akron Northside station North is owned by the Park Service, and gets significant subsidy for track and infrastructure improvements. Akron Metro Transit Authority owns the line South to Canton and leases freight operating rights at Akron to the Wheeling's ABC subsidiary, and to the Wheeling itself North from Canton for several miles. The need for public safety in operating outstrips the desire for historic signaling. Most of the line had cross-buck only protection historically, and now every public crossing has at least lights and bells, with gates at major and dangerous crossings. I'd love to see wig-wag grade crossing signals and B&O CPL's being used on the line (although as best anyone around here knows, the line was always dark territory), but at least I can ride a train on the line most weekends throughout the year (see recent thread on representing historic operations in smaller scales for ideas on showing what was historically correct operating practices).

First and foremost, the reminder is that it's National Park Service territory, they own the track, CVSR is the operator. NPS also provides capital repairs and track maintenance. So if NPS decides that a "green" locomotive going down through the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreational Area is a good idea, its probably going to happen. This isn't a railroad museum, or a for-profit excursion railroad. It's really not quite like anything else out there now except 'maybe' the Grand Canyon.

I think most people have no idea how many bodies are now on CVSR. They've done an incredible job from the early 90's when 12,000 riders a year were on a diesel-only Akron-Cleveland substiture for a broken-down 4070 operation, on the verge of giving it up. It's now a full-blown, multiple train, multiple destination operation and also one of the largest Polar Express operations in the US. They have more power, more cars, a beautiful shop facility, and more density now than a few low-end commuter railroads I know - run with a mix of volunteers and paid staff.

This is also likely the heaviest-density rail + biking operation now in the US....check it out. http://www.cvsr.com/bikeaboard.aspx

As long as they are running steam specials and 'playing well' with JJ, more power to them. I know that the day back in the early 80's when I went out to ride a 4070 excursion and it broke down, a Chessie GP40 showed up, and the all-day excursion turned into a battle with heat, humidity, and slow speed... I never would have imagined what the potential was then.

Far be it from me to lambaste the CVSR for commercial success that keeps railroading alive for the public that can't get to, or afford, Amtrak.

On the other hand, if this has really gone from a "heritage operation" to a "people mover," what's the next step in this process--stringing catenary and converting to Light Rail? (Don't laugh--a proposal to do just that with the northern end of the Grand Canyon Railway is still in the NPS plans as a congestion/pollution reduction plan, if it hasn't fallen off the proverbial back burner....)

I've participated in several studies in the CCC corridor to look at alternatives.... Our analysis and several other firms pretty much placed the ex-B&O Cleveland-Akron-Canton alignment dead last. It ranked behind the ex-CR alignments and even the ex-W&LE alignments.

It's down in the valley - other than Peninsula, almost devoid of communities.

The track has more curves than you'd think. It's not a 65-mph corridor.

They've had ongoing problems with heat kinks over the years - CSXT relaid it with welded rail and then up and left - whether or not it was properly normalized when installed....? But there was never really enough shoulder ballast to hold it as it is alongside the river on a rather narrow subgrade. To fix it would require environmental impacts..well, finish that sentence.

Parking is also problematic for anything of any size for commuter. One of the reasons the railroad works as well as it does is that trailhead parking is limited and under the right weekend circumstances, the roads are slow going. NPS doesn't want parking and commuter traffic in there.

Like I said... it very well be in a class by itself now. Rather unique. The next big thing that could/should happen is getting service either to Tower City (the big dream) or at least as far north as Steelyard Commons (which gets them into the city, lots of parking area, and into the Cleveland School District bussing zone)

Structurally, it is a class by itself. It's the only tourist line that gets away with being nonprofit. Because it's functionally a supporting organization to the park. The transit function is important. It's pretty much the same trick NPS was trying to accomplish in the Indiana Dunes with all those South Shore cars, but here, they own the track.


I'm not laughing. When I heard "that the CVL was owned by the National Park Service", the first thing that came into my head was "Finally... a use for that glut of South Shore cars." Why on earth they didn't do that is a mystery to me. Perhaps they had some misconceptions about the expense of hanging wire, substations and the like. At 1500VDC I don't see them needing more than two substations. They would need feeder, but it's cheap - get decomissioned high tension line.


One more point in favor of electrification. Welded rail = reliable return and no rail bonds needed.


Concrete ties solves that. To get the concrete ties you need another problem. Creosote leaching.

Out of curiosity, how was this new locomotive paid for? New power like this isn't cheap.

I read on "trainorders.com" that the locomotive is testing on the CVSR for data and to work out bugs. Goggle also sent me to another site that said the locomotive was leased.

Maybe someone from the CVSR can comment on this.

It also appears that it has been on the CVSR for sometime.

I have been involved with some genset locomotives and I know that they get better fuel economy, but I do not believe 73% better then the Alco locomotives which has been posted on Trainorders.com. It also says they pulled the train one way on their 4 cylinder "APU" unit. What did they pull? Was it down hill?

Like it or not, genset locomotives are going to be part of the future of railroading.

It really is reinventing the past. What were GE, Whitcomb, Davenport and other centercab locomotives, but "genset locomotives".

First and Foremost. IT IS NOT GENSET!!!. I hate that term. It has one large MTU 12V2000 @ 1005 H.P. prime mover. It has a small John Deere A.P.U. unit that can move the locomotive and some cars. (It was pulling the Thomas trains North bound on the A.P.U.)
Not all "green" locomotives are gensets! All of these being built from here out are tier 4i WITH OUT S.C.R. There is not a tier 4i genset.

It doesn't really matter how they are paying for it. (It is not tax payer money)

The unit uses 73% less fuel on the same train and run. ($700 savings) It has not used any oil yet. Has not left on drop of anything on the ground!

Maintenance costs on this unit will prove to be allot less due to the ease of service being built in to it. Allot of the parts are available off the shelve, in many cases from local stores. Most important is you don't need a P.H.D. to work on it.

The 1005 H.P. Model pulls the same weight with out wheel slip as the RS-18. It doesn't even have sand in it yet.

The design is available to install a 1550 HP Tier 4i package in one of the larger locomotives. To bad more people don't see that as a viable way to keep all the F-units that have been scrapped recently in service. Use Emission reduction funds to retrofit those old units with Tier 4i engines and use them. The "historic fabric" may not be the same but better than being turned into a pile of scrap.
This is more affordable than you may think. This locomotive costs less than a genset.

I have been involved with some genset locomotives and I know that they get better fuel economy, but I do not believe 73% better then the Alco locomotives which has been posted on Trainorders.com. It also says they pulled the train one way on their 4 cylinder "APU" unit. What did they pull? Was it down hill?"


Believe it. IT is VERY True. You do the math Alco 279 Gallons Lean and Green 72 gallons.

Lean and Green pulled loco 1822, power car, 11 coaches and Thomas Level track slight up hill slight down hill 10 M.P.H. on a 4045 John Deere, not setting a speed record but got the job done on less than 2 gallons of fuel.

Jack, would you know what MTU is doing to support their customers with training on maintenance and inspections of their locomotive applications? One of the frequently heard criticisms out here of the "other" (yellow) engine supplier is that the local dealers for the yellow engines tend to treat railroad customers as if the application were in a bulldozer rather than a locomotive that is hauling people on a schedule. If it breaks down they are expected to leave it sitting there and wait for the repair technician who might be available next Thursday. There is usually little or no local training offered to railroad shop people, and no access to the national training at Peoria which is usually for dealers and very large industrial customers. I see MTU making some progress in the industry and I wonder if they are finding better ways to do things.

PC

You could start by installing one in a gutted GG1 body.

Ducking for cover...