I don’t know if this belongs here or in Transit, but will leave it to someone else to post it over there in context.
According to LocoNotes, a F125 Spirit has finally run ‘solo’ on Metrolinx - SCAX 908, running trains 314,335 and 336 to San Berdoo yesterday. It will be interesting to see how quickly other units enter service, and how they perform.
Metrolink ordered about 40 of them back in 2013. I'm not sure how many of them are on the property or being tested right now.
Several recent test train pictures:
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/634068/
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/633329/
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/633498/
I suppose in time, a lot of time, we will come around, and learn to love this styling. That front end looks like a sea creature, shrimpy.
Why did the carbody design have to be designed by a Spanish company. Vossloh Rail Services? We, ummm, EMD, Caterpillar, Progress Rail, don't know how to do this any more?
Oh yes, it's a global world society now, everything's in the cloud...I forgot.
I visited the Metrolink San Bernardino stop yesterday, and saw no F125’s, only the older power:
Maybe things will work out next Friday that I could spend the day there. Surely one F125 will be by …
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Miningman I suppose in time, a lot of time, we will come around, and learn to love this styling. That front end looks like a sea creature, shrimpy. Why did the carbody design have to be designed by a Spanish company. Vossloh Rail Services? We, ummm, EMD, Caterpillar, Progress Rail, don't know how to do this any more? Oh yes, it's a global world society now, everything's in the cloud...I forgot.
Great info..thanks Peter/M636C.
Still say the head on look presents a face only a mother would love.
Hope they achieve good reliable service and long service lives.
M636CVossloh is a German Steel Company.
Vossloh is primarily a railroad infrastructure company. They deliver rail fastening systems, concrete ties, concrete crossing panels, turnout systems, signaling systems and products, and locomotives. After selling the Valencia facility to Stadler they still produce switching locomotives: https://www.vossloh.com/en/
If I remember correctly all semi-monocoque structural designs for American passenger locomotives beginning with GE's Genesis P40 came from Europe. Only exception maybe the MPI locomotives. For the MPI locomotives I didn't find a source telling who did the semi-monocoque structural design.
Deutsche Bahn hasn't excepted six axle locomotives for quite some years. With lower axle loads European manufacturers were forced to built light and use semi-monocoques even on freight locomotives.
The CEM elements on the F 125 come from Vossloh too. Because our our different crashworthiness requirements (lower buff load, more crash energy management) companies like Vossloh and Siemens have CEM experience that American companies don't have to this extent.
Same goes for high speed trucks with truck-suspended traction motors.Regards, Volker
I didn't think the MPI locos WERE monocoques. I thought they were cowels like the FP45 and F40/59/59PHI. In any case, The answer is Simple, EMD (and GE) didn't know how to do it, because the number of passenger locomotives purchased is small, so maintaining R&D staff to do that design was not cost effective. That's part of why the Cowel designs came about in the first place.
You are right, EMD ang GE would have been able to do it, but with a long learning curve and high risk of failure. It was an economical decision.
The monocoque (or semi-) are very similar to the cab units. The skin takes over the task of the truss diagonals, like plate girder and truss bridges. The cowl came when ATSF didn't want road swichers for their premium passenger trains.
Regarding the MPI locomotive: I think I read somewhere they are monocoques but can't find it anymore. When ATSF ordered theit EMD GP60M they wanted a cowl unit, but axle load limits allowed only a wide cab road switcher. Perhaps that and 8' more length made me believe that MPI locomotives have a monocoque design
When GE built the Genesis P40 they used a monocoque for two reasons: Weight and height. According to a GE presentation the monocoque was 20.000 lbs lighter than with a heavy frame underbody.
If you compare weights of a P40 (268,000 lbs) and MPI MP40PH-3C (289,000 lbs) There is 21,000 lbs difference with the MPI having a separate HEP generator.
Perhaps a half-heartedly designed monocoque? I really don't know, what to believe.
I'll try to find the monocoque source this afternoon.Regards, Volker
Hmmm... With GE, I can understand that. Records show that for the USA, they only built a sinlge 4-unit ABBA cab-unit set, essentially a cab unit version of their U-boats, but with lower power. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why EMD didn't try building cab units after the last E9 was delivered. There was only a three year difference between that and the FP45's introduction, so I don't quite know why they didn't at least try.
The railroads didn't ask for cab units. They had realized road switchers were easier to run (better view backwards) and easier to maintain. And weight saving wasn't necessary for freight units.
The FP45 wasn't a cab but a cowl unit. It is a SDP45 with a full width hood. While on cab units the side walls were load carrying on cowl units the hoods were just for the ride.
ATSF wanted a cowl unit for their prestige passenger trains. The didn't like the look of a freight road switcher up front, though they started with a GE U28CG.
ATSF bought the F45, a SD45 with full width hood, for aesthetics. GN to protect its crews from the hard winters in the north.
After bad experiences with six-axle locomotives (EMD SDP40F, GE E60CP, E60PH, P30CH) Amtrak decided to use four-axle locomotives.
The GE AMD103 Genesis (P40) was the first cab locomotive in a long time with a monocoque design. It saved 20,000 lbs weight and allowed more horsepower, and a larger fuel tank.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR The railroads didn't ask for cab units. They had realized road switchers were easier to run (better view backwards) and easier to maintain. And weight saving wasn't necessary for freight units. The FP45 wasn't a cab but a cowl unit. It is a SDP45 with a full width hood. While on cab units the side walls were load carrying on cowl units the hoods were just for the ride. ATSF wanted a cowl unit for their prestige passenger trains. The didn't like the look of a freight road switcher up front, though they started with a GE U28CG. ATSF bought the F45, a SD45 with full width hood, for aesthetics. GN to protect its crews from the hard winters in the north. After bad experiences with six-axle locomotives (EMD SDP40F, GE E60CP, E60PH, P30CH) Amtrak decided to use four-axle locomotives. The GE AMD103 Genesis (P40) was the first cab locomotive in a long time with a monocoque design. It saved 20,000 lbs weight and allowed more horsepower, and a larger fuel tank.Regards, Volker
That's true...but that brings up the question of why Amtrak didn't acquire any of the FP45's from Santa Fe. True they weren't as fast as the SDP40F's, but the 45's had the same top speed as the dozens of F7's the Amtrak used instead. Plus, they more powerful and were already being used on other Western Roads.
The GE carbody units, which later became Erie 750ABCD, were testbeds that predated the introduction of the Universal line to the North American market.
The Universal line was introduced in 1956 as a full line of export locomotives and the first U25B demos in 1960 were modified export designs.
RailfanGXYThat's true...but that brings up the question of why Amtrak didn't acquire any of the FP45's from Santa Fe.
Amtrak ordered 150 SDP40F. ATSF just had 9 FP45. Both were equipped with steam generators, but the SDP40F was prepared to exchange the steam generator for a HEP unit, the FP45 not.
So why add a different model to the fleet when you have to buy the SDP40F anyway.
On the other hand you need two parties for a deal. The FP45 were easily converted into a freight engine, as it was based on one. So why should ATSF sell if they were content with the locomotive?Regards, Volker
RailfanGXYwhy Amtrak didn't acquire any of the FP45's from Santa Fe
ATSF didn't make them available to Amtrak.
RailfanGXYTrue they weren't as fast as the SDP40F's
You must mean the gear ratio. The FP45's had a bit more HP, so would be accelerate to track speed a bit faster.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Post deleted due to showing up in the wrong thread.
CSSHEGEWISCH The GE carbody units, which later became Erie 750ABCD, were testbeds that predated the introduction of the Universal line to the North American market. The Universal line was introduced in 1956 as a full line of export locomotives and the first U25B demos in 1960 were modified export designs.
This past Sunday, March 18, 2018 a visit to Los Angeles was made, specifically to a place called “Keller Yard,” and parking was as impossible as ever! But, miraculously, a parking space was found, so it was grabbed.
On previous recent visits when a parking space could not be found, the Keller facility could be glimpsed at only, but F125’s there were increasingly accumulating dust on them, and they looks absolutely filthy. This visit the F125’s had been washing, were sparking, and immaculate. Below is a selection of F125 photos.
Keller Street that had been closed due to freeway construction was now open, WITH free and plenty of parking spaces on it (at least on a Sunday), so close views of the F125’s could be had.
Interestingly, previous visits to the area and photos at other websites, most of the units were facing northish. This visit, and as seen in the photos herewith, many of the units were now facing southish.
Metrolink engine No. 925, prominent in two views among the six above, is known to have been misrouted by BNSF and went both ways over Tehachapi Pass.
http://rrpicturearchives.net/locoPicture.aspx?id=230596
It appears a shielding of some sort was damaged, or maybe a spare (?), and was laying trackside in the Keller facility.
As of this date, while a few F125’s have been seen out on the rails, the many at Keller Yard suggests that those seen elsewhere might have merely been familiarity runs for crewmen. It is difficult to imagine Keller Yard F125’s, though, were cleaned to just collect dust anew.
I think they look sweet , wish they were all running system wide!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.