8,000 HP F40PH in the works

Overmod · **Joined:** Thu May 24, 2012 1:37 pm **Posts:** 2492

Quote:

"Third, aren't D-E units already 'hybrids'? Someone needs to send the PR writer (or Mr. Stewart) back for some schoolin'."

Seems like some schoolin' is definitely in order: "hybrid" specifically implies energy storage as part of the powertrain.

I think you are confused by the redefinition of 'parallel hybrid' that took place when the Japanese started popularizing hybrid cars. Originally a parallel hybrid was so called because it used only electric traction, and had its energy storage in parallel with an engine-electric power source; when not operating on battery or blended power, it would run as a diesel-electric. This is an example of what the Japanese now call 'series' hybrids; the term 'parallel' now being used for transmissions in which a prime mover and the electric motor both provide mechanical output simultaneously (in some changing proportion but without either being declutched).

Now, had you said 'tripower locomotive' you would have been more accurate, although there the diesel engine was more intended to charge the traction battery than to provide independent TE of its own. But another generally-accepted feature of a hybrid is that it perform effective regenerative braking to charge the battery, which to my knowledge no tripower design was arranged to do. Obviously dynamic braking doesn't count without a battery to save the power to...

superheater · **Joined:** Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:54 pm **Posts:** 2605

"Of course, it is the opposite of preservation, so it requires the gymnastics of broadening the definition preservation to include non-preservation as something to be preserved."

In other words, words can mean whatever you want them to mean. If something can mean anything, it means nothing.

No matter how this is spun, it is not preservation as it is normally understood.

dinwitty · **Joined:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm **Posts:** 2226

F40PH-es are no longer produced, grabbing one, throwing in new power has preserved the base of the engine but has been pushed up a level. We have some steamers around whose original boilers have been replaced with new builds, so we still have an act of preservation here.

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:41 am

dinwitty wrote:

F40PH-es are no longer produced, grabbing one, throwing in new power has preserved the base of the engine but has been pushed up a level. We have some steamers around whose original boilers have been replaced with new builds, so we still have an act of preservation here.

No.

Putting a new boiler in place of an old, or for that matter rebuilding an inferior engine design detail to improve reliability for future operation (say, roller instead of plain bearings), helps a hypothetical operator (say, the WW&F in Maine, Strasburg, Durango & Silverton, etc.) preserve the "old ways" by allowing them to continue operations of a "time capsule."

The proposed objective of this F40PH project in no way helps "preserve" the Amtrak of the 1970s or 1980s from which the F40PH emerged. Taking the mentality expressed by "dinwitty" to its logical extreme, we could brand the California High Speed Rail project "preservation" for (supposedly, hopefully) "preserving" passenger rail in California.

There are other locos available for this proposed project. It plainly appears that the only reason for pursuing this particular F40PH is in hopes of using/acquiring "state property" on the cheap or for a token $1 or free transfer.

superheater · **Joined:** Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:54 pm **Posts:** 2605

"There are other locos available for this proposed project. It plainly appears that the only reason for pursuing this particular F40PH is in hopes of using/acquiring "state property" on the cheap or for a token $1 or free transfer."

For this very reason, most levels of government have rules about disposing of taxpayer property. Governments are supposed to be custodians of property, not owners. If this is in fact state property, and it is transferred without appropriate compensation or proper authority, then those who do the disposal should be held accountable.

dinwitty · **Joined:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm **Posts:** 2226

How an engine is preserved has been thru a lot of debate including historical fabric and everyones interpretation this way and that way. But its just as important of discusssion on this forum as many museums have diesels in preservation and discussion on it including this one is just as important for preservation concerns. I find it interesting someone wants to mod up an F40PH like this.

Randolph R. Ruiz · **Posted:** Sun Jun 11, 2017 1:39 am

There is no need to discuss "what is preservation?" as if it's some arcane branch of conceptual philosophy. There is a a well-established field of professional preservationists out there and it amazes me that so many on this board seem hostile or dismissive towards the standards and practices they've developed – standards and practices which are reasonable, and take into account the practical needs of something that is both preserved and still in use. If you don't care about this stuff, you are just playing with old trains.

It is literally not rocket science, unless you're preserving a rocket, and then I guess it might be.

Bee-tea-dubs - the Amtrak 231 in Portland, OR is in Ogden, UT. and while it is owned by a 501c3, the whole dealio seems a bit too shaky to me to be able to safely say it's safe, so I did not count it among the two F40s owned by museums.

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:13 am

Randolph R. Ruiz wrote:

Bee-tea-dubs - the Amtrak 231 in Portland, OR is in Ogden, UT. and while it is owned by a 501c3, the whole dealio seems a bit too shaky to me to be able to safely say it's safe, so I did not count it among the two F40s owned by museums.

In that case, EVEN MORE reason to declare NCTM's 307 "off limits" for this malarkey of a proposal.

(And I won't even raise the question of how "secure/safe" CSRM's F40PH is in Sacramento-or-wherever.)

Dave · **Posted:** Sun Jun 11, 2017 6:17 pm

I'd like to point out, again with no dog in this fight, that nobody posting on this thread has any authority to declare anything "off limits" at NCTM. I don't know if the state or the foundation owns this unit, but only in one or the other of them will persons with the authority to agree or not be found.

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:22 pm

As someone who indirectly instigated the NCTM's acquisition of 307 via an op-ed in Trains Magazine, my understanding from talking with Museum administration when it was dedicated is that the loco was transferred to the State of North Carolina for a $1 sale as a federal-to-state transfer of surplus assets--precisely as I had suggested might be possible in my essay. I believe California did the same thing. Whether or not they were later passed down to a foundation/Friends group, I don't know for sure.

superheater · **Joined:** Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:54 pm **Posts:** 2605

"I find it interesting someone wants to mod up an F40PH like this."

Then you want a "rat rod", not an antique car.

If you've ever been to the AACA Museum in Hershey PA, you'll note they have a lot of antique cars and no "rat rods".

When you drop that small block Chevy in a Ford, it's something new.

PCook · **Joined:** Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:16 am **Posts:** 2127

About the history of this locomotive.............

The F40PH is somewhat unusual in that it made it to preservation “soon” enough so that a few of the people who designed, built, delivered and taught about this series of locomotive are still alive, although mostly in their 70s and 80s now. Thus there still remains an opportunity to hear about the history of the original F40PH development project from those who actually participated in it. But such opportunities are not necessarily of interest to railroad museums and nearly all of those people will be gone in another ten years.

PC

Overmod · **Joined:** Thu May 24, 2012 1:37 pm **Posts:** 2492

And meanwhile, to put some of the earlier discussion in perspective:

From LocoNotes yesterday, what to my wondering eyes should appear...

http://www.railpictures.net/photo/619756

Caption says these are two ... of FIVE ... going to DieselMotive in California for some kind of Tier 4 testing. Perhaps at the conclusion of that testing, one or two could be given battery packs and circuitry?

Walter · **Posted:** Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:26 pm

Overmod wrote:

Quote:

"Third, aren't D-E units already 'hybrids'? Someone needs to send the PR writer (or Mr. Stewart) back for some schoolin'."

Seems like some schoolin' is definitely in order: "hybrid" specifically implies energy storage as part of the powertrain.

I think you are confused by the redefinition of 'parallel hybrid' that took place when the Japanese started popularizing hybrid cars. Originally a parallel hybrid was so called because it used only electric traction, and had its energy storage in parallel with an engine-electric power source; when not operating on battery or blended power, it would run as a diesel-electric. This is an example of what the Japanese now call 'series' hybrids; the term 'parallel' now being used for transmissions in which a prime mover and the electric motor both provide mechanical output simultaneously (in some changing proportion but without either being declutched).

Sorry, I forgot to include a 'tongue-in-cheek' smiley in my first post.....
If only someone made batteries large enough to store some of the electricity from dynamic braking......

Now, had you said 'tripower locomotive' you would have been more accurate, although there the diesel engine was more intended to charge the traction battery than to provide independent TE of its own. But another generally-accepted feature of a hybrid is that it perform effective regenerative braking to charge the battery, which to my knowledge no tripower design was arranged to do. Obviously dynamic braking doesn't count without a battery to save the power to...