timz wrote: edbenton wrote:Correct and sucking down the fuel at 200 Gallons per HOUR.It doesn't, of course. If it's "idling" at 896 RPM and supplying no HEP or traction power, it burns ... what's it supposed to be, around 25 gal/hr?Caltrain still has a couple of old-style F40s (not converted with a separate engine for HEP) so somebody hopefully has a clue what the correct figure is.
edbenton wrote:Correct and sucking down the fuel at 200 Gallons per HOUR.
It doesn't, of course. If it's "idling" at 896 RPM and supplying no HEP or traction power, it burns ... what's it supposed to be, around 25 gal/hr?
Caltrain still has a couple of old-style F40s (not converted with a separate engine for HEP) so somebody hopefully has a clue what the correct figure is.
From the manueal
"
NORMAL -
Intended for normal passenger service. Engine operates at full speed (893 RPM); AC power supplied to trainlined power connectors by Head End Generator; throttle varies AR 10 excitation for traction motor control. (the F40PH is pulling your train and provideing HEP)
STANDBY -
Intended for short term stopover in passenger service such as loading-unloading, scheduling anticipations or delays, or to prepare the passenger section (heating or air conditioning) prior ‘to passenger boarding. Engine operates at standby speed (720 RPM); trainlined power connectors supplied AC by AR 10 main generator; no power to traction motors; no throttle response. (The F40PH is only provideing HEP)
ISOLATE -
Intended for operation without auxiliary AC power. No AC power to trainlined power connectors; engine - speed varies with throttle position as with a conventional freight locomotive. Normal idle speed of 410 RPM. (F40PH is only pulling no HEP)"
Amtrak liked to have one locomotive in the consist soley for HEP on bigger trains.
Railway Man wrote: Ham549 wrote: Thoes Fule tanks look pretty big to me. Unlike the Genesis the F40PH wasen't a "seemless" carbody so you could easely get at and replace parts.1800 gallons looks big?2200 gallons on the P42. 400 more gallons extends range by at least two hours, which is quite a big difference. Try turning wrenches on an F40. Then tell me it's easier to get at things than on a P42. All carbody type locomotives have poor maintenance access to the prime mover and equipment rack.I applaud your determination and persistence.RWM
Ham549 wrote: Thoes Fule tanks look pretty big to me. Unlike the Genesis the F40PH wasen't a "seemless" carbody so you could easely get at and replace parts.
Thoes Fule tanks look pretty big to me. Unlike the Genesis the F40PH wasen't a "seemless" carbody so you could easely get at and replace parts.
1800 gallons looks big?
2200 gallons on the P42. 400 more gallons extends range by at least two hours, which is quite a big difference.
Try turning wrenches on an F40. Then tell me it's easier to get at things than on a P42. All carbody type locomotives have poor maintenance access to the prime mover and equipment rack.
I applaud your determination and persistence.
RWM
Look at the tanks again they are bigger then 1800 looks to be more like 2500 to 3000
Those CSX units have had larger fuel tanks added 2600 Gallons I believe. They are not "stock."
Here's a Stock Fuel tank
http://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=79057
I think in my opinion F59PHI is a better locomotive than both of them junk. It's a better stable and more for the $$$.
edbenton wrote:Ham have you EVER PULLED a wrench in your life or worked with steel before. In order to modify those units first you have to remove all the batteries and placethem somewere else in the unit then build a new fuel tank and then mount it to the unit. Word to the wise making a fuel tank is not easy. You have to make sure there are NO LEAKS OF ANY KIND and bending 1/2 inch thick steel is not easy. Then you have to remove the old one and mount the new one in place plumb the intake and return and the fillers plus make sure all the air lines tanks do not need to be moved.
chefjavier wrote: http://www.locophotos.com/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=79057I think in my opinion F59PHI is a better locomotive than both of them junk. It's a better stable and more for the $$$.
Except the fact that they are overweight.
An "expensive model collector"
Ham549 wrote: Railway Man wrote: Ham549 wrote: Thoes Fule tanks look pretty big to me. Unlike the Genesis the F40PH wasen't a "seemless" carbody so you could easely get at and replace parts.1800 gallons looks big?2200 gallons on the P42. 400 more gallons extends range by at least two hours, which is quite a big difference. Try turning wrenches on an F40. Then tell me it's easier to get at things than on a P42. All carbody type locomotives have poor maintenance access to the prime mover and equipment rack.I applaud your determination and persistence.RWM Look at the tanks again they are bigger then 1800 looks to be more like 2500 to 3000
I checked and the tanks on CSX's F40s are 2520 gallons.
edbenton wrote:Considering a LOG truck will derail just about anything out there nothing to laugh at. Remember that cargo is solid also and can get under the wheels and lift them if it is HARDWOOD also then you are in a world of hurt.
Uuhhhh, Ed, ya might want to see this first...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rp-GzO7q0c8&feature=related
Have fun with your trains
The first batch of F40s had 1200 gallon tanks.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
FTGT725 wrote: timz wrote: FTGT725 wrote:Does this mean you always need two F40s in a consist, one for HEP and one for motive power?No. FTGT725 wrote: If you can run a solo F40, and it's always in notch 8, how do you control the speed and pulling power of the lone F40?The F40 isn't always in Notch 8-- its engine is running at Notch 8 speed when providing HEP, but it's comparable to running your car's engine at 4000 rpm with the gearshift in neutral. If no excitation current is going to the AR10 it just spins freely, absorbing no power from the prime mover; the engine's control system provides enough excitation current to get the pulling power corresponding to the throttle notch. So when supplying HEP, are you saying they basicly idle at the notch 8 rpm setting?
timz wrote: FTGT725 wrote:Does this mean you always need two F40s in a consist, one for HEP and one for motive power?No. FTGT725 wrote: If you can run a solo F40, and it's always in notch 8, how do you control the speed and pulling power of the lone F40?The F40 isn't always in Notch 8-- its engine is running at Notch 8 speed when providing HEP, but it's comparable to running your car's engine at 4000 rpm with the gearshift in neutral. If no excitation current is going to the AR10 it just spins freely, absorbing no power from the prime mover; the engine's control system provides enough excitation current to get the pulling power corresponding to the throttle notch.
FTGT725 wrote:Does this mean you always need two F40s in a consist, one for HEP and one for motive power?
FTGT725 wrote: If you can run a solo F40, and it's always in notch 8, how do you control the speed and pulling power of the lone F40?
So when supplying HEP, are you saying they basicly idle at the notch 8 rpm setting?
Yes. Notch 8 engine speed, no load. Having the throttle in idle while in HEP mode is nearly the same is if the throttle was in Notch 8 with the generator field switch down.
Ham549 wrote:I know thoes aren't stock. The fact is it was easy to fix the fule tank problem.
No, then you have a weight problem! (which is tollerable depending where you go and how fast you want to run.)
Fuel is 7.043#/gallon
cprted wrote: edbenton wrote:Ham have you EVER PULLED a wrench in your life or worked with steel before. In order to modify those units first you have to remove all the batteries and placethem somewere else in the unit then build a new fuel tank and then mount it to the unit. Word to the wise making a fuel tank is not easy. You have to make sure there are NO LEAKS OF ANY KIND and bending 1/2 inch thick steel is not easy. Then you have to remove the old one and mount the new one in place plumb the intake and return and the fillers plus make sure all the air lines tanks do not need to be moved.Ham is a kid who volunteers at a Trolley Museum (and can't understand why an F40 doesn't fit the collection plan) and likes Amtrak F40PHs (Amtrak ones, not the Via, not the Metra, the AMTRAK)
Would Amtrak's last batch, the ex-GO Transit ones rebuilt at Juniata be acceptable?
A 16-645E3 turning at N4 (560 RPM) no load is about 15 gal/hr. and if the HEP was making a full 700 HP, the fuel consumption would be roughly that share of full speed/full load or 700/3000 x 180 ~40 gal/hr, so 25 is a pretty good guess!
He reminds me alot of the company driver that wants the Pete 379 for the looks Yet the Boss and shop decided on Freightliners for ease of maintance and fuel mileage.
vsmith wrote: edbenton wrote:Considering a LOG truck will derail just about anything out there nothing to laugh at. Remember that cargo is solid also and can get under the wheels and lift them if it is HARDWOOD also then you are in a world of hurt.Uuhhhh, Ed, ya might want to see this first...http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rp-GzO7q0c8&feature=related
All this video proves is the reason police ballistics labs go to great lengths to create the EXACT set of circumstances under which the crime occurred. The only fair test would be to have BOTH loco's run into the SAME log truck and load. Given the price of locos and trucks, I kind of doubt that someone set up an experiment just to see what happens when a loco hits a log truck. Plenty of empirical evidence for that. It looks more like it was an experiment to see if cutting the logs in the middle made any difference in the damage to the loco.
Size of the logs, speed of impact, number of logs on the truck, whether the logs were chained down, angle of impact, motion of the log truck, not to mention blind, dumb luck ... all of these (and thousands more) factors would affect whether a loco derailed after hitting a log truck.
Which isn't to say that a Genesis doesn't derail more easily than an F40PH. In fact, if it is designed like a car with a safety cage, it might be designed to deflect forces to the side of the crew compartment, which would have the effect of making the loco move sideways if it encountered a heavy enough obstacle.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
F40-
P42-problems, problems, problems....
The P42-nice engine- estimates too much, so won't stop right.
I don't like the odd look of the P42.
That is not the nose of an F40PH. That is a much newer EMD cab (~1990 vintage) designed to a much newer set of crash standards.
Just semantics, but that wasn't an SD60 with the wide nose, but an SD40T-2 that had been modified.
Yes though, apples and oranges.
The Genesis derailment would have happened with any locomotive, given the circumstances.
edbenton wrote:If you look closer the engine that hit the log truck was a SD-60M there is a HUGE differance in weight between a F40 and a SD60 namely about 50 tons. Also the cab was set back with the anticlimber of the SD Series and not the F40 right there. Comparing that test to the Genesis being derailed by log truck is like comparing a Cab over engine truck to a long nose convential truck getting into an accident. On a Cab over YOU ARE THE FIRST THING TO THE ACCIDENT. With a convential the engine is the first thing and slows the truck down first kind of like the safety cab.
I agree. Looked like a tunnel motor with the 2nd generation SD60 cab (two window version with slight nose taper) attached to it.
Let's try this again as my first post was deleted.
Unless you work on them, in them, or depend on them on a daily basis, you guys are pretty much focused on looks and the railfan belief of waxiing nostalgia. Which will last longer? Simple - the one that drains the least amount of money. Why did Amtrak replace the F40s? More computer orientated, better on fuel, crew comfort and safety, warranty, and having the latest model usually ensures a reliable source of parts.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Ham549 wrote:....I have noticed that they tend to catch fire more often then not...
Where have you noticed this? I've been tracking Amtrak derailments and wrecks for a long time now and the integral fuel tank of the P40/42 appears to be a safer design then the relatively open and unprotected tank of an F40.
Perhaps the best comparison between the two locomotives is the terrible Sunset Limited wreck of 1993. The lead Genesis (819) unit did not catch fire. However one, if not both, of the trailing F40's (262 and 312) fuel tanks ruptured and a devastating fire resulted. Take a look at photos if you can find them. They are hard to come by, especially of 819 after being pulled from the mud, but you'll notice the lack of scorching and relatively good condition of 819 compared to the F40s. Although tragically both crew members in the Genesis perished, they did not die from fire but asphyxiation from mud. The F40s did catch fire...and led to the burning of the baggage car and crew car (former Santa Fe Hi-level) and a few deaths from the fire.
Looking quickly at my files the only Genesis locos that suffered fires induced by wrecks that I know of were on the California Zephyr wreck of 2001 (Wendover Utah) and the City of New Orleans wreck of 1999 (Bourbonnais Illinois). Both of these fires resulted from passenger cars crushing or badly bending the locomotive frame resulting in fuel spills.
But I'd really like to hear where they have caught fire more often then not? Are you simply referring to the stack fires common to GE's, and not a catastrophic fuel fire?
Matt from Anaheim, CA and Bayfield, COClick Here for my model train photo website
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.