rdamonAccording to this story they have pulled the BNSF units on 11/1 https://www.claremont-courier.com/articles/news/t21019-trains Shhh! City moves forward to limit train noise November 03, 2016 3:49 PM If the horns from trains passing through Claremont seem a tad quieter than usual, it’s due to a main culprit being taken off the tracks. Locomotives from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad—the big, orange engines that have been a fixture in front of Metrolink trains for the better part of the year—have officially been taken off the line, the city announced last week. The locomotives have been taken off the tracks as of November 1, Metrolink spokesperson Gina Mack confirmed.[snip]
https://www.claremont-courier.com/articles/news/t21019-trains
Shhh! City moves forward to limit train noise
November 03, 2016 3:49 PM
If the horns from trains passing through Claremont seem a tad quieter than usual, it’s due to a main culprit being taken off the tracks.
Locomotives from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad—the big, orange engines that have been a fixture in front of Metrolink trains for the better part of the year—have officially been taken off the line, the city announced last week.
The locomotives have been taken off the tracks as of November 1, Metrolink spokesperson Gina Mack confirmed.[snip]
Meant to post and link before; yes, the temporary BNSF leaders have been removed and replaced by Rotem cab cars that Metrolink has repaired. Few technical details have escaped (typical Metrolink) but the likely root cause of the Camarillo misperformance was discovered (IIRC bad welds). Metrolink is suing Rotem to recover their repair costs.
Links to my Google Maps ---> Sunset Route overview, SoCal metro, Yuma sub, Gila sub, SR east of Tucson, BNSF Northern Transcon and Southern Transcon *** Why you should support Ukraine! ***
According to this story they have pulled the BNSF units on 11/1
The locomotives have been taken off the tracks as of November 1, Metrolink spokesperson Gina Mack confirmed.
[snip]
On Saturday, March 12, 2016, an outbound Metrolink arriving in San Bernardino did NOT have a BNSF unit trailing (photo far right).
Another train leaving San Bernardino, possibly to the Colton maintenance facility, had the cab car leading sans (or without) any BNSF power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
It appears that around a dozen of the BNSF AC4400CWs are out and running in front of trains. So I guess it depends on one's definition of 'common'.
It is really strange to see this after Metrolink's many saucy-worded promotions on how their new cab cars were going to be so much safer than those awful BBD Bilevels that everyone else uses...
Posted the following photo in the new thread “Metrolink – New Happenings in San Bernardino, CA Area” in the General Discussion forum earlier today!
It is unknown if the use of BNSF units is now widespread or still scanty.
While BNSF power on Metrolink trains is a ‘happening,’ the main focus on that other tread with be on new track, etc. This thread is specifically on the Metrolink’s use of BNSF power.
I was just in L.A.. i wasn't paying much attention to Metrolink consists (shame on me), but I think I recall seeing a Metrolink train coming into Union Station with one of the new cab cars in the lead as I was waiting for a Pasedena trolley
a few days ago, at the Santa Ana station, I saw Metrolink 634 with an BNSF engine 5671 in "front" going south. Both it and the Metrolink enginene speeded up as it left the station. Couldn't catch a photo since they were stopped for just a couple of minutes.
BNSF 5612 trailing through Atwood, Metrolink 888 leading EB and under power.
A10
BNSF Power Parked at the Colton Maintenance Facility
By unused New Jersey commuter cars are now a few BNSF GE units.
At the San Bernardino stop itself, a Metrolink consist was seen with the standard cabcar leading and NO BNSF power.
SP657E44 (1-2):
About that Metrolink with a BNSF unit leading that you reported seeing in Fullerton, my guess is that it was an inbound (westbound) train. Did I make a good guess?
Best,
K.P.
One Metrolink through Fullerton last week had a BNSF unit leading.
Are the Rotum cars defective?
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-metrolink-report-20151216-story.html
Maximum speed of BNSF AC-44CWs is 70mph. Metrolink's Saugus, Ventura, and River subs have short sections of 79mph trck but many are short enough that time-keeping should not be an issue. The San Diego sub has 79mph and 90mph tracks covering longer distances thus time-keeping would be affected but minor schedule adjustments by minutes would take care of that.
No BNSF Power Yet Just Lingers On
On the evening of November 19, 2015 the present end of the line San Bernardino stop was checked for BNSF leased power. No such units were observed, at the stop itself, the overnight parking area to the east, nor in the Colton maintenance facility. Just Metrolink cabcars lead consists on the west ends.
In the latter photo, usually Metrolinks get a red over green here, but this consist was only going to the Colton maintenance facility, and theoretically would receive a red over yellow over flashing red, but since the signal only has two heads, red over yellow has to suffice.
The supposedly leased BNSF ‘freight’ units have or had a lower gear ratio than the commuter units. It is unknown if the gear ratio will be changed to the commuter speeds, or if Metrolink will operate trains with two different gear ratios on the power that will be on both ends of its trains.
In the "Word from the CEO" section of the October / Novemeber newsletter.
http://metrolinktrains.com/pdfs/MetrolinkMatters/metrolink_matters_2015_OctNov.pdf
As part of Metrolink’s commitment to safety and reliability, we will be leasing locomotives from BNSF Railway to add a second locomotive to all our train sets for the next year. You will start to see them across our system in the coming weeks.
These locomotives are newer, more powerful and cleaner than the majority of Metrolink’s current locomotives, which will result in fewer service delays and less system-wide emissions. In line with Metrolink’s commitment to safety, the BNSF locomotives will be outfitted with life-saving Positive Train Control (PTC) technology. They will also allow us to maintain the service you all depend on, while the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) continues its investigation into February’s tragic train derailment in Oxnard caused by a truck parked on the tracks.
When we receive our new state-of-the-art Tier 4 locomotives in 2016, these BNSF locomotives will likely be retired from our system as operations allow. The Tier 4 F-125 locomotive Spirit engines offer up to 1,700 higher horsepower, while using less fuel and reducing emissions by up to 85 percent over many of the locomotives in our current fleet, some of which have logged more than a million miles of passenger service. I am proud to know that Metrolink will be the first passenger rail provider in the nation to deploy these clean locomotives across our system.
Until our new locomotives arrive, we look forward to offering you the safest, most reliable service possible. We appreciate your patience in this interim period.
Saw a rumor a long time ago that all locomotives leased will be 5600 series AC4400CWs, but I didn't want to post it until confirmed. These units had been stored in the Midwest like the Dash 9-44CWs of similar age mentioned in other threads.
Well at least one loco is an AC. Saw picture of BNSF 5641 leading 5 car train and 857 trailing San Bernandino - LAX this afternoon.
KP has a good point that Metrolink may have bitten off a big chunk. The contract may be in preliminary negoiation. A few of many items.
11. What locos ?
12. Age of locos and if needing major work during lease ?.
13. AC or DC traction ?
14. If AC traction can locos just be reprogramed for 79 MPH operation ?
15. Is the 40 loco number total or number available ?
16. BNSF may have enough spare locos with ATS installed. Traffic downturn may allow BNSF to have spares. We get occasional BNSF units with the ATS shoes passing thru here.
17. Repair protocols ?
18. Wrecks ?
19. Mileage charges ?
Other items ?
A new article ..
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-metrolink-engine-lease-20151008-story.html
"Metrolink, which serves six Southern California counties, will spend $23.9 million to lease 40 engines for one year from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co."
In this thread’s initial post, blue streak 1’s first three of six questions may (“may”) have touched on the reason for the delay. Perhaps the temporary lease agreement was made in haste, and the concept of different gear ratios of freight and passenger locomotives wasn’t even thought of. Nor the lack of ATS equipment on BNSF locomotives! Then, at the end of the short term lease, the revised gear ratio and added equipment would have to be change back, adding to its cost.
As I recall, when Western Pacific was eaten up by Union Pacific circa 1982, basically overnight all the WP units were put in storage. WP freight locomotives were replaced with UP freight locomotives. But, it is not so simple with freight to passenger-commuter geared locomotives.
And, BNSF can’t just continue to maintain their Metrolink leased locomotives at their BNSF shops because to do so even more locomotives would have to be leased because of travel time to and from a BNSF maintenance facility.
I would venture to say the Metrolink people have gotten themselves into a far thornier situation than they ever imagined.
It has been 4 weeks since Metrolink's announcement. There have been no reports of any trains using the units yet. Another site mentioned there was one parked appearing to be for orientation.
Gallery bi-level coaches equipped with control cabs have been standard practice in the Chicago area since the early 1960's. Periodic grade crossing incidents haven't caused any problems beyond the usual delays and clean-up.
Running two locomotives will be costly.
Conversion of locomotives to cab cars, as done by Amtrak would solve the problem. You don't need to start with an F40PH, a GP38 would do as well and there must be plenty of those around.
There was an accident between Edinburgh and Glasgow in Scotland that paralleled the recent derailment of the Rotem car. This train had a standard "brake second" (a combine in US terms) with a cab leading when it hit a large bull that had wandered onto the (Fully fenced) line. The cab car was too light, rode over the animal and derailed.
After this, those cab cars were removed from normal service.
This occured in time for the design of the "Mark IV" trains for London Edinburgh and dedicated cab- baggage cars were built (and similar "Mark III" cars were built for the London Glasgow service).
One of the East Coast MkIV sets hit an SUV left on the line by a guy who had fallen asleep at the wheel. This derailed the cab car which slammed into a week old EMD class 66 on a coal train in the opposite direction. The cab car was completely demolished, and passengers were killed in the following cars but the toll would have been much worse had passengers been riding in the cab car.
M636C
Metro Red Line (9-15):
The ROTEM order was a smart move, in my opinion. The adding of cab cars to the fleet was not so smart.
I personally won’t ride the Bombardier cars anymore. If you don’t mind the good possibility, if something happens, having the floor fall out from under you and you suddenly shaking hands with the ties at high speed, as happened in some of the juicier incidents, you are much, much braver than I am.
My personal belief is that Metrolink sees the writing on the wall, so to speak. The overwhelming EVIDENCE is that cab car operation is inherently unsafe, and I think the history of disastrous incidents at Metrolink supports that belief. I also think the NTSB will come to that conclusion too, and may have already done so, but not publically yet.
You, forum contributor Metro Red Line, may be interested to know that probably about 10 years ago, before the ROTEM cars came, I rode a Metrolink on the San Bernardino Line roundtrip. The car right behind the engine was ridden in both ways. And, the sound of the engine was very, very pronounced. The Metrolink locomotive was engine number 855, the unit that ran head-on into the UP train in the now infamous Chatsworth incident. In that incident, 855 instantaneous stopped and jackknifed, with the Bombardier car right behind it crushing to half its length. If that had happened when I rode behind 855 a few years earlier, I wouldn’t be posting this. Kind of a weird feeling that gives one!
Because of that there might be more of a reason for my opinion than initially meets the eye.
Stay safe,
So the whole "crash-resistant" ROTEM car order was a huge waste of money then? I rarely ride Metrolink (I live in central L.A., use Metro Rail more often, rarely go into the suburbs, and just drive there when I need to), but when I do, I prefer to ride in the Bombardier cars. Seats are nicer and more comfortable. Kinda sad now that they sold a bunch of Bombardier coaches to CalTrain.
GO and LIRR did similar to that but eventually abandoned the practice for specialized diesels. Perhaps there is something to be learned as to why that doesn't work. It makes sense to me.
Maybe they should move beyond cab cars. How about a heavy duty hybried cab car/HEP with leftover space used for bicycles or passengers. Then they could get rid of expensive passenger diesels, and use more of an off-the-shelf freight diesel with appropriate gear ratio for passenger service.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.