Re: (erielack) NJT "Aqua" Train - and how did EL handle this?

["Gary R. Kazin" <gkazin_@_yahoo.com>]

- --- STEVEZ10_@_aol.com wrote:
> It almost seems like the old MU's/E8's/U-34's never had problems with
> this. I would think the U-34's didn't have any problems because they
were
> so heavy and had a tremendous amount of traction effort.

There were many fewer trees so close to the railroad west of Orange; there
has been a lot of growing over the past 40 years.  U-boats had 3400 hp for
traction (200 more drove HEP), about 200 tons IIRC based on the freight
design later introduced as the U36C.  Also, most of the U-boats did not
run via Morristown; the Boonton line grades are easier.

> The ALP-44's were built too light so they had problems pulling...

5900 hp despite the claim (and NJT publicity) that they are 'identical
twins' of Amtrak's 7000 hp AEM-7.  NJT's roster says 7000 hp, but I think
that's incorrect.  7 stands for 7000 hp, 44 stands for 4400 kilowatts
which equals 5900 hp.  ALP 46 doesn't stand for anything but is 7108 hp,
99 tons.  ALP 44's are 102 tons.

One reason for the light weight is four axles, easier on track.  GP/F40's
weigh 140-150 tons depending on which model and who rebuilt them.

> The DL&W Mu's must have been heavier then the Arrow Mu's too...Did
> they have sand??

No, and neither do the Arrows.  Comet cab cars DO, along with plows... 
The DC MU's had something like 300 hp per car; Arrows are 600 hp so they
accelerate faster - except on leaves.  The DC's didn't have the tractive
effort to break friction with rail despite leaves.  ALPs have traction
controls to avoid spinning axles, but that doesn't seem to work on
leaves...



=====
Gary R. Kazin
DL&W Milepost R35.7
Rockaway, New Jersey

http://www.geocities.com/gkazin/index.html

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

------------------------------