TrainManTy wrote: route_rock wrote:GE should have stuck to toasters and lightbulbs!Well, here's a toaster...Now to find a GE lightbulb....
route_rock wrote:GE should have stuck to toasters and lightbulbs!
Well, here's a toaster...
Now to find a GE lightbulb....
That's one classic engine and paint scheme...more recognizable than the HHP8 will ever be. Sometimes I wonder why they got rid of Phase III...
SchemerBob wrote: TrainManTy wrote: route_rock wrote:GE should have stuck to toasters and lightbulbs!Well, here's a toaster...Now to find a GE lightbulb.... That's one classic engine and paint scheme...more recognizable than the HHP8 will ever be. Sometimes I wonder why they got rid of Phase III...
Good point, Phase III was a great paint scheme but the people demanded something else. I'm not sure about this but when Acela came into the states, Amtrak started dawning the rest of there locos that way but I could be wrong
Amtrak should buy a passenger version of the SD70M.EMD builds reliable locomotives and they last a long time.
espeefoamer wrote: Amtrak should buy a passenger version of the SD70M.EMD builds reliable locomotives and they last a long time.
I'm not sure that EMD even offers any passenger locomotives besides the F59PHI.
EMD doesn't even offer the F59PHI anymore, and..
Oh, forget it. There are too many reasons to list.
Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296
Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/
Amtrak77 wrote: SchemerBob wrote: TrainManTy wrote: route_rock wrote:GE should have stuck to toasters and lightbulbs!Well, here's a toaster...Now to find a GE lightbulb.... That's one classic engine and paint scheme...more recognizable than the HHP8 will ever be. Sometimes I wonder why they got rid of Phase III...Good point, Phase III was a great paint scheme but the people demanded something else. I'm not sure about this but when Acela came into the states, Amtrak started dawning the rest of there locos that way but I could be wrong
Yep, Acela was the first train with Phase V, then it was painted on Genesis, the AEM7's, new switchers, and now the Dash 8's and Cabbages. I don't dislike Phase V, but phase III sure looked great. A few years ago Amtrak re-painted some of their Cabbages in fresh Phase III - maybe they're having second thoughts?
Well in this months Trains there was another article about how the $2,000,000 locomotives are breaking and leaving Amtrak in a tight spot (if only they had a older more relabeled locomotive at the ready). I have been saying it for quite some time now, the P42's are P.O.S. and unsafe and this is just another example of what a sham these units are. I think I heard somewhere that the guy put in charge of Amtrak's new locomotive program had ties with G.E.? Wouldn't surprise me.
Ham,
4merroad4man stated the point so well and realistically.
I worked in the transit bus industry and heard the same type of complaints, inspite of the fact that equipment runs day in/day out accumulating hundreds of thousands of miles in just a few years. Yet, some expect buses and locomotives to be nearly indestructible.
I witnessed the premature, gradual demise of the Amtrak SDP40f and saw the F40 crowned as the new "king of the passenger rails" in the 70s. The F40s were tough and hung in there until the late 90s. I spoke to locomotive engineers durnig the late 90s that were looking forward to the F40s getting traded in or scrapped asap! Those EMD warhorses, that we admired so much, were breaking down left and right as Amtrak continued to defer or perform "bare essential" maintenance on them due to shoe string budgeting. Fried traction motors were becoming a common occurrence on the east coast LD trains.
Fast forward to today. Guys...........does not history repeat itself? Even with their teething problems, the Genesis units have met the overall expectations. They've collectively racked up millions of miles and are no longer fresh young Mustangs. Considering Amtrak's sorry funding from congress and its lean maintenance budgets, those units are performing as well as can be expected.
I do hope that Amtrak's next racehorse will be an EMD. Who knows? A carbodied, 4 axle FP70ace?
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
coborn35 wrote:Well what the hell else is Amtrak gonna buy?
Have fun with your trains
Let's look at this one part at a time first saftey.
Vs.
The crew of the P42 crash had to be cut out with the jaws of life BTW.
To make a reasonable "eye-ball" assessment:
1. What speeds were these 2 locomotives traveling at before the impacts?
2. Were the locomotives coupled single headed or double headed?
3. Did the impacts occur with automobiles? Trucks? Other trains?
4. Were the vehicles or objects that were hit in motion? Or were they stopped on the tracks?
5. Were they facing the locomotives head-on, or were they perpindicular?
You have to consider that these are among the many variables that have to be considered when FRA investigators arrive on the scene.
Like today's automobile's, the P42's monocoque body is designed to absorb and deflect impact away from the cab.
Of course, the same argument was made when the GG1 was replaced by the E60 and, later, the AEM-7. The GG1 electrics could have probably demolished 2 tractor trailers parked side by side, compared to the AEM-7, but their thick frames (which were developing stress fatigue cracks) did not save them from retirement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottom line is that Amtrak's fleet power managers had to decide whether to maintain a locomotive fleet that, save for a few units, had exceeded its life expectancy or proceed to replace it with more efficient power.
A. Don't forget that the F40s had annoying teething problems with HEP (years back I was on the Silver Meteor, pulled by 2 F40s, when its HEP conked out 3 times!)
B. Add to that, Amtrak's F40's fuel efficiency with HEP was "horrid" by today's standards.
C. The big factor that sealed the F40s fate was that EMD discontinued the 645 series primemover. The 710 series has fewer interchangeable parts with the 645 series than the 645 did with the 567-C. Truck and traction motor technology have also advanced.
With the above factors, any manager with common sense would have immedietely started the process for researching viable replacement locomotives long before the war horses hit age 15.
Of course one can argue......"Hey, freight railroads are still running SD40-2s and GP38s."
Yes, but unlike Amtrak, railroads such as CSX, UP, and NS keep small batches of retired 645 powered locomotives to provide parts for the Dash 2s still in service. Even then, that's for a short time.
vsmith wrote: coborn35 wrote:Well what the hell else is Amtrak gonna buy?
Sometimes I think these engines actually have more class than the Genesis engines. Have these engines had any large problems? I don't even think any of them are out of service. Sure, they look like a freight locomotive, but you have to remember that the F40 was basically a freight engine with HEP under a full-cowl body, unlike the Genesis which was completly designed as a passenger locomotive. If they painted these engines back up in Pepsi Can colors, I'd rather see them on all the Amtrak trains instead of Genesis.
Of course, Amtrak only has 20, so ...
The F40s are worn out junk. Scrap em while the price is right!
Rule #1: railroads will get rid of old equipment and buy new.
Rule #2: railfans can't change rule #1.
Ham - don't turn into one of those railfans that does nothing but complain about how everything new "sucks".
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
To add to SchemerBob's info, the F40 was fundamentally a modified GP40-2 extended chassis with a streamlined carbody.
From the 1960s thru today there has been a "misguided" label used by many transportation bean counters regarding locomotives. EMD locomotives like the GP35 and GP40 were tagged as "Freight Engines", when in reality the prefix "GP" denoted "General Purpose", which included the capability of use in passenger train service. GE was in a similar postiion. A railroad or transit company could easily order a unit to be equipped with a boiler (later HEP equipment), and high gear ratios that allowed up to 100mph operation. By the same token the unit could just as easily be "reconverted" for freight duties. This is what "mechanically" made the Geeps and the "SDP" series superior to the famed "E units" of the past.
Of course, appearancewise (to the general public) those units were unattractive inspite of their excellent capabilities. Hood units have been used in passenger service for decades, yet still they bore the "freight locomotive" stigma. MARC and Metrolink have operated hood units in their fleets in their attractive color schemes.
Units like the Genesis and MP36 are specially tailored to the needs of modern passenger trains (higher amp output for accessories for example), however it still makes me wonder what their "trade in or resale" value would be.
That's why I wonder if it does not make more sense to take a unit, like a 4 axle version of the SD70, and adapt it for passenger train service. Would be interesting and perhaps cheaper.