For the life of me, I can't see why someone hasn't ruggedized a microwave-enabled version of one of these.
(With replaceable liners in the oven cavity, so any little unsanitary messes can be changed out before they ... age. This is also a potential solution for Amtrak 'public' microwaves or ovens.)
jeffhergert traisessive1 A huge problem with that would be them ALL being trail only in Canada. Canadian CN crews require a microwave, which NO other Class One has and a fridge, which many Class One engines also do not have. UP outfitted some engines for Canadian service. Run throughs with CP I believe. They had a hot plate and tea pot and a stretcher. I don't recall if they added the microwave. I know some of the ones outfitted were already equipped with a refrigerator, so I don't know if they had to add ones to any engines. Other than run through unit trains that don't change power, it seems like the junkiest power gets interchanged. It wouldn't surprise me with PSR in vogue, that the class ones don't want to lease out their stored power. That's probably their reserve has active engines have major failures. Reactivate a reserve engine and put the heavy bad order in storage instead of fixing it. Jeff
traisessive1 A huge problem with that would be them ALL being trail only in Canada. Canadian CN crews require a microwave, which NO other Class One has and a fridge, which many Class One engines also do not have.
A huge problem with that would be them ALL being trail only in Canada.
Canadian CN crews require a microwave, which NO other Class One has and a fridge, which many Class One engines also do not have.
UP outfitted some engines for Canadian service. Run throughs with CP I believe. They had a hot plate and tea pot and a stretcher. I don't recall if they added the microwave. I know some of the ones outfitted were already equipped with a refrigerator, so I don't know if they had to add ones to any engines.
Other than run through unit trains that don't change power, it seems like the junkiest power gets interchanged.
It wouldn't surprise me with PSR in vogue, that the class ones don't want to lease out their stored power. That's probably their reserve has active engines have major failures. Reactivate a reserve engine and put the heavy bad order in storage instead of fixing it.
Jeff
CP contract only requires hot plates and fridges, so I doubt those units got microwaves.
We've had a bunch of UP units running around up north lately (including the CNW heritage unit), and every one I've seen has been trail-only. Just because of the lack of cab amenities, mechanically they are as good/bad as any of ours.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
Biggest issues I can see are in maintenance and inspection. If you've ever heard of the term "rent a wreck" or "rented mule" you know how it goes. Everybody treats everybody else's stuff like it is fully expendable. It already happens somewhat. With locomotives being the cornerstone of railroad operations, I just can't see how the companies would release that much control over their fleets. Besides, the horsepower-hour protocol already works well as needed and takes care of the short-term trading back and forth that goes on in order to make some of those hand-off more efficient and the like. Sure there are sometimes that roads get in a power pinch but most often the tide rises and falls with most everybody. It is actually kind of unique right now that CN is power hungry and nobody else is. Usually everybody needs power around the same time. Back in 2013-2016 or so GE's order book was stuffed, and we saw NS and CN buying scraps because they were also power hungry along with virtually everybody else, but they were worse off. Everybody else could afford to wait for their orders to come in. So it ebbs and flows, and I just can't see enough of a justification to create a big power pool, especially once the "tragety of the commons" comes into play.
caldreamer...so why would there be any with locomotives
The devil may be in the small print. Oftimes rail equipment is purchased not by the railroad directly, but by equipment trusts. Those agreements might contain restrictions. It's already been mentioned as a reason why locomotives excess to a railroad's needs may sit in storage lines instead of being disposed of immediately.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
What anti trust issues. Look at TTX, which is a freight car pool operation joinly owned by the Class 1 railroads. No anti trust issues there, so why would there be any with locomotives
On my desktop, I currently have a picture of a Louisville & Indiana GP38-2 leased to South Shore and MU'ed with a South Shore GP38-2. Admittedly, the two roads have common ownership but it is an interesting sight.
zardozI did not know railroads leased locomotives from each other; I thought leasing went thru an actual leasing company like GATX or CIT.
That's been going since steam days.
wjstix I suspect it's probably easier / more economical to just lease engines as needed. Over the years, it hasn't been uncommon for a railroad to lease engines for a limited time from another railroad. Soo Line at one time regularly leased engines from the Missabe Road and Minneapolis Northfield and Southern. Rock Island leased New York Central diesels during grain rushes in the 1950's.
I suspect it's probably easier / more economical to just lease engines as needed. Over the years, it hasn't been uncommon for a railroad to lease engines for a limited time from another railroad. Soo Line at one time regularly leased engines from the Missabe Road and Minneapolis Northfield and Southern. Rock Island leased New York Central diesels during grain rushes in the 1950's.
I have actually noted a decrease in non CSX leaders in my neck of the woods. Could it be that there are PTC problems with locos from other than home RRs operating on track segments ?
Ulrich CN is currently taking delivery of and leasing new locomotives while UP has parked alot of theirs due to the implementation of PSR. Given that everyone today is running the same two locomotive models why not create a locomotive pool which can be drawn upon by any member railroad? This would be much like the pooling of autoracks.. each railroad would contribute locomotives to the pool and draw them out as required..
CN is currently taking delivery of and leasing new locomotives while UP has parked alot of theirs due to the implementation of PSR. Given that everyone today is running the same two locomotive models why not create a locomotive pool which can be drawn upon by any member railroad? This would be much like the pooling of autoracks.. each railroad would contribute locomotives to the pool and draw them out as required..
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
reliability/ fuel consumption/ competition w/ brand X
(Pre-1990's merger you did not want Burlington Northern's locomotives anywhere around you, especially the ones in coal service - they ran the crap to failure. DRGW ran their locos as plain as they could from day 1 to retirement, the only difference being the oddball MU pin-connection set-up.)
Pooled locos between railroads happened, but not on a universal basis. Power BY The Hour had its own pratfalls (Oakway/ Gelco/GECX/LMX et al).
The Class 1's might be a bit leery of a joint power pool as proposed because of possible antitrust issues. Besides, there are several leasing firms that already have a similar setup.
That seems like a great idea. I wonder if would be possible to get the railroads interested. After all, the railroads constantly use locomotives from other railroads on run-thru trains, horsepower paybacks, etc.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.