The Metrolink commuter rail system in the Los Angeles area recently posted pics on their Facebok page of their new EMD F125 loco in production at the Indiana plant.
They will be the first railroad to use the new EMD Tier IV passenger loco by late 2015/early 2016.
Here they are:
Interesting, thanks for posting. Notably, this seems to lack an isolated cab, and the bolt-on fibreglass nose that the F59PHI had. The bodies are not EMD-built. They are shipped from Spain, so probably Vossloh?
With that shade of paint, the body looks like injection molded plastic.
LensCapOn With that shade of paint, the body looks like injection molded plastic.
I heard they will come DCC-ready, and equipped with sound.
The cab lines aren't that different from the cabs that MPI has been using on its suburban locomotives for several years now.
These locos look very similar to the DE/DM 30's built for MTA-LIRR back in the late '90's. The canted windshield reflects the desire to reduce the angle of incidence for whatever 'UFO's that may be directed at the locomotive during operations.
In the past, both EMD and GE obtained substantial design input from offshore in the design of 'clean sheet of paper' passenger locomotive carbodies, e.g., Siemens and Krupp respectively.
As an aside, Vossloh is in the process of re-organzing, with the railroad vehicle business being placed up for sale.
Since EMD, Vossloh, GE, MPI, and Brookville are all clients of Vergara Sudios that's probably why they all look alike.
Alright, friend, take this banter over to the MR page
Seriously, folks, this does look like something coming out of a resin-cast process.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
UPDATE! Metrolink recently posted this on their Facebook page:
Behold, the EMD F125.
look a better looking LIRR DE/DM ?? but why is it under selling by 3 to 1 ??
It will be interesting to see what it looks like with the front panel on at a more traditional 3/4 angle. Looks good, however, those crash beams at the front are brutal. Get used to that massive radiator intake section at the rear of modern passenger locomotives.
Next step is to see how well it runs...
For anyone who missed it, Vossloh's rail division is now part of Stadler Rail.
Lovely. Now work the bugs out of the 1010 engine and then figure a way of wedging one into that carbody.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
D.Carleton Lovely. Now work the bugs out of the 1010 engine and then figure a way of wedging one into that carbody.
Why ?
Is the 1010 better than the C175 (other than it doesn't use urea to meet T4) ?
At least the C175 is 'rail proven' (we've got some of the V16 version running in the UK, on passenger work) and probably lighter and smaller - virtues for a passenger locomotive.
This video will give you and idea of what the V16 C175 sounds like -
owlsroost D.Carleton Lovely. Now work the bugs out of the 1010 engine and then figure a way of wedging one into that carbody. Why ? Is the 1010 better than the C175 (other than it doesn't use urea to meet T4) ?
"Is the 1010 better than the C175?" Without ever seeing a 1010 in person the answer is 'yes.' Why? Because Caterpillar is guilty until proven innocent.
I would add on a personal note my view that the longevity of American passenger locomotives is in part attributed to the medium speed engines under the hood. Keeping it under 1000 rpm just seems to last longer.
Back in the 2000's, Siemens proposed an 'upgrade' for the relatively new LIRR DE/DM30's-replacing the 12-710 with a high speed engine of German manufacture.
CPM500
CPM500 Back in the 2000's, Siemens proposed an 'upgrade' for the relatively new LIRR DE/DM30's-replacing the 12-710 with a high speed engine of German manufacture. CPM500
D.Carleton CPM500 Back in the 2000's, Siemens proposed an 'upgrade' for the relatively new LIRR DE/DM30's-replacing the 12-710 with a high speed engine of German manufacture. CPM500 Had not heard of that one. Wonder what Siemens had in mind?
Had not heard of that one. Wonder what Siemens had in mind?
Almost certainly the MTU 4000 in 16 or 20 cylinder versions....
M636C
MTU would be the obvious candidate - well proven in passenger rail use.
The main problem with the 12-710 seems to be high fuel consumption (compared to a good four-stroke diesel) in the sort of duty-cycle that short/medium distance passenger services create. It's one of the main reasons that a UK passenger operator recently switched from EMD 12-710 powered locomotives to CAT C175 powered ones (the Class 68 locos in the video I posted earlier).
Owlsroost you must be a MTU salesman. If so you know that MTU stands for Multiple Trouble Unit.
creepycrank Owlsroost you must be a MTU salesman. If so you know that MTU stands for Multiple Trouble Unit.
Nope - electronics engineer
The UK has 170 HST power cars fitted with MTU 16V4000 R41R engines (replacing the original Paxman Valenta engines about 10 years ago), all intensively used in front-rank service every day. As far as I know there haven't been any significant problems with them. We've also got quite a lot of DMU cars fitted with automotive-derived MTU underfloor engines - when first introduced they had some problems after being in service for a while, but these were sorted out and there are probably around 600 'MTU powered' DMU cars running around the UK system. That said, I get the impression that if you want a fairly 'bomb proof' DMU powertrain then Cummins (engine) plus Voith (hydraulic transmission) is probably the best, well proven comination - we've got a lot of those in the UK too, up to 750hp per car.
M636C Indeed, it was an MTU engine. CPM500 D.Carleton CPM500 Back in the 2000's, Siemens proposed an 'upgrade' for the relatively new LIRR DE/DM30's-replacing the 12-710 with a high speed engine of German manufacture. CPM500 Had not heard of that one. Wonder what Siemens had in mind? Almost certainly the MTU 4000 in 16 or 20 cylinder versions.... M636C
Indeed, it was an MTU engine.
CPM500 M636C Indeed, it was an MTU engine. CPM500 D.Carleton CPM500 Back in the 2000's, Siemens proposed an 'upgrade' for the relatively new LIRR DE/DM30's-replacing the 12-710 with a high speed engine of German manufacture. CPM500 Had not heard of that one. Wonder what Siemens had in mind? Almost certainly the MTU 4000 in 16 or 20 cylinder versions.... M636C
D.CarletonEven so, wedging a MTU V20 in place of a 12-710 would have been quite the trick only to be followed by new control hardware for the engine. I can understand LIRR balking at this.
Seems to me there's a reasonably long list of people peddling MTU repowers of EMD lcomotives, so I doubt the 'packaging' of the high-speed engine and any electronic or even electrical components is "that much" of a problem. I'd be willing to put the onus on cost issues, then on the reliability questions associated with high-speed engines in railroad service...
To me, the big issue continues to be how the engines will hold up once the 'bloom is off the rose' and normal maintenance (or more precisely, the intentional stinting or lack of same as an apparent SOP) is used for a while. It may well be that Cat has figured out with the C175 how to make an engine that survives the usual disasters that run through nine lives too quickly. The folks there evidently think they have, in a number of significant respects, and I for one am watching what happens with the various railroads that will be running F125s to see what happens, especially with this engine at 4700 hp in light carbodies at high peak track speed, and with frequent transition from high load to near-idle...
creepycrankOwlsroost. I think that the UK must be a nation of mechanics and since the DMU's are run by the government they need to make work for all those mechanics to do. You might want to read "Alaska Ferries vs. MTU" . Apparently their MTU engines can't stand up to the abuse they give them. They found that all the cylinders started to crack together. That's German precision for you. Alaska Ferries though that they would get a lot more hours before they had to overhaul them. MTU settled out of court giving them all new engines and a service contact. The MTU service guys may occupy the engine room but its the skipper that runs the controls. As far as the LIRR DM/ DE's are concerned they were a wacky combination of EMD diesel Siemens electrical controls and traction motors all assembled by Super Steel in New York state. The problem was primarily on the Siemens control software which has apparently been sorted out by now. The DE/ DM date from the time that GM still owned EMD so in the interim Siemens, a locomotive builder without a diesel passed on buying EMD. Probably the unfunded pension fund put them off.
Pretty much all the passenger rolling stock in the UK is owned by (private) leasing companies, and either maintained by the (private) train operating companies or by their original manufacturers (usually under some sort of guarenteed 'power by the hour' scheme, so the manufacturer takes a penalty hit if the trains aren't reliable). They don't do any more maintenance on them than they have to...
Re. Siemens - don't forget that they were the AC drive equipment supplier/partner to EMD for all of the SDxxMAC locomotives (it switched to Mitsubishi with the SD70ACe), so the LIRR DM/DE having Siemens electrical equipment is logical.
As I understand it the Siemens equipment on the DE's/ DM.s is either unique to them or an old design that is no longer manufactured. It was recommended that the LIRR order a large stock of spare parts which they didn't do. Their previous locomotives were GP38's and MP15's where parts are readily available anywhere.
The problem seems to be primarily with the DM (dual mode) running on the third rail rather than the DE (diesel electric).
EMD produced fewer of these odd balls than the BL2 of the 1940's which were F units with a different suit of clothes. EMD doesn't stock the non EMD parts so they have to deal with Siemens. Since that time EMD was sold twice and everybody that was their that knew that passenger locomotives was a bad idea are long gone.
As far as DMU sales in this country how is that going? Their are plenty of EMU's like LIRR, and Metro North and all the subways. The preference is for Diesel hauled push = pull trains such as the Metrolink F125.
There are three transit agencies that utilize diesel propulsion in the United States that I know of - there might be more than these three:
New Jersey Transit Trenton Line...
North County Transportation District (San Diego)...
Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (North of San Francisco)...
Metro Red Line UPDATE! Metrolink recently posted this on their Facebook page: Behold, the EMD F125.
This is the successor to the great F40?..
....
longhorn1969 Metro Red Line UPDATE! Metrolink recently posted this on their Facebook page: Behold, the EMD F125. This is the successor to the great F40?..
Metro Red Line UPDATE! Metrolink recently posted this on their Facebook page: Behold, the EMD F125. This is the successor to the great F40?..
Wizlish D.Carleton Even so, wedging a MTU V20 in place of a 12-710 would have been quite the trick only to be followed by new control hardware for the engine. I can understand LIRR balking at this.
D.Carleton Even so, wedging a MTU V20 in place of a 12-710 would have been quite the trick only to be followed by new control hardware for the engine. I can understand LIRR balking at this.
That pretty much sums it up. No one designs an engine without a means of controlling it. The issue with a repower is adapting that package with an existing platform; translation: money. The EMD GP/SD platforms are ubiquitous yet the repower contracts are far and few between.
As for the LIRR DE/DMs the eldest of these will be 20 years old next year. One is already a parts donor, if it still exists. Siemens and EMD are offering new passenger locomotives: Charger and F125 respectively. If the DE/DM carbodies have held up perhaps there is a chance for a repower package from either builder utilizing the QSK or C175?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.