An interesting point is raised on RyPN this morning.
Apparently, through information provided on this page, there is a possibility that the engine-block disablement is not always required to satisfy the 'letter of the law' when low-emissions 'replacement' locomotives are financed.
This is fundamentally worthless in what it actually says the museum's people figured out, or whether the 'exception' applies to public agencies as well as private short lines. But it may well be 'worth it' for the OP, or others concerned with preserving this locomotive or finding a safe home for it, to investigate whether any level of formal engine demolition or disablement is actually necessary.
Flintlock76 The only reason I can think of is to kill it, for the reasons Overmod suggested. i'm reminded of a story about Norfolk & Western 611. After the "Farewell to Steam" trips, and after W. Graham Claytor persuaded Stuart Sauders to preserve it, there was a rumor going around the N&W Roanoke shops that the firebox grates were to be removed by cutting torch and other parts of the locomotive disabled to prevent it running again. Robert Claytor, then part of the N&W legal department, contacted the roundhouse chief and told him "Before anything like disabling 611 is done, call me first!" At any rate, the rumors were false, and 611 went intact to Wasena Park for display.
The only reason I can think of is to kill it, for the reasons Overmod suggested.
i'm reminded of a story about Norfolk & Western 611. After the "Farewell to Steam" trips, and after W. Graham Claytor persuaded Stuart Sauders to preserve it, there was a rumor going around the N&W Roanoke shops that the firebox grates were to be removed by cutting torch and other parts of the locomotive disabled to prevent it running again. Robert Claytor, then part of the N&W legal department, contacted the roundhouse chief and told him "Before anything like disabling 611 is done, call me first!"
At any rate, the rumors were false, and 611 went intact to Wasena Park for display.
It can be preserved without its engine and become a static display. Either way we will be happy if it was saved with its engine disabled or not. Down the line we can find a way to fix the engine if that don't work out, we can make it a static display until we save up for a new engine for swap eventually.
Lithonia Operator What is the idea behind requiring the drilling of holes into the engine block? Ecological? That a more-polluting (compared to current specs) prime-mover never runs again?
What is the idea behind requiring the drilling of holes into the engine block?
Ecological? That a more-polluting (compared to current specs) prime-mover never runs again?
Well, They were forced to do it to disable the engine by an agreement with the CARB for the grant for the new locomotives. Once we are able to hopefully save it, We will try to weld in the hole depending on how bad the hole is by a patient welder hopefully or swap in another EMD 645. If that don't work out, We will be happy to make it a static display piece. I'm sorry but this locomotive is a beautiful unique piece of history and it must be preserved due to it's Southern California hertiage. Her sisters 231, 281, and 307 are already preserved in museums. Besides it would be the second to last order and newest F40PH preserved
I'm just trying to help preserve the F40PH and we'll take it the way it is now. We'll worry about the engine once we get it our hands. I saw that an EMD 645 can sometimes be fixed with a patient welder depending on how bad the hole is. If we can't do anything about the engine, We'll be happy as a static display.
You're extremely unlikely to get the decision to disable the prime mover 'revisited'. That's been a staple of funding incentives since before Obama's "incentive" trade-in that required destruction of the engines in cars if 'credited' under the program. The specific terms of the agreement under which Metrolink obtained the 125s was that an equal number of locomotive engines be scrapped -- ideally the lowest-'tier' ones first.
That said, the 'engine block' in an F40PH is a weldment, and drilling holes or filling it with ferroconcrete is not quite the death sentence it would be for a cast case like a GE. In any case, restoring the locomotive to operation no matter how thoroughly the engine is 'neutered' could be done relatively easily by swapping in any comparable 645 or 710 engine, not a difficult thing. Same thing with traction motors, or even whole truck assemblies; same thing with many of the control systems.
So the order of the day is to get Metrolink to donate as much of the F40PH to preservation as possible -- ideally as a rolling shell with the engine removed. If there are any components that would tend to 'run up' a scrapper's sale price, consider having them removed, too -- just document their construction or details, if so, and how to install and remove them.
Now, it might be mentioned that Amtrak has had a relatively longstanding policy regarding 'resale' of both its locomotives and parts. They will often not sell anything that might be operated again (lest there be any imputed liability) and we were treated a few years ago to the (horrifying!) spectacle of a couple of intact AEM-7s being cut up, trucks and all, by a couple of contractors promising to reduce the locomotives entirely to scrap metal. It is quite possible that Metrolink has a similar policy in place for its 'rolling assets', in which case you or the LAUSHS organization would need to provide some guarantee that the locomotive would be 'plinthed' and never operated while in your possession -- this might involve some careful faking of supports to look like Blomberg trucks, for example.
If you are allowed to 'operate' -- there's a long history of experience both with 'cabbages' (F40s with engines removed) and with cab conversions (where parts of the engine are retained as ballast) which have the traction motors removed. You might need to 'cocoon' the bull gears, etc. to facilitate remotoring at a future date, but this is a relatively small detail.
An argument to be working up comes out of 'well-to-wheel' analysis: what are the environmental costs of scrapping out this locomotive vs. handing it off to preservation?
Hello People, I just got to give you a heads up that Metrolink may scrap it's only F40PH which is number 800 due to them replacing the older locomotives with the F125s and an agreement with the grant holder required Metrolink to drill holes into the engine block disabling them permanently. The Los Angeles Union Station Historical Society are trying to save that locomotive and they have attended the board of directors' meetings and their presentation caused the directors to table the matter so they could "revisit" their scrapping policy. Meanwhile, LAUSHS are asking people to write letters to the Metrolink's Board of Directors and send a copy to the Los Angeles Union Station Historical Society via US Mail or email. I myself have started an online petition which has over 130 signatures at Change.org and here is the link to the petition: http://chng.it/rBxbqv7v and the website to the Los Angeles Union Station Histrocial Society:https://www.launionstationpreservation.org/
Please sign the petition & share! Thank you!
Help preserve this locomotive to a railroad museum!
Metrolink's Mailing Address:
SCRRA Board of Directors
P.O. Box 812060
Los Angeles, CA 90081-0018
Los Angeles Union Station Historical Society:
LAUSHS, PO Box 411682, Los Angeles, CA 90041
Email: laushs@earthlink.net.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.