What happened to the Amtrak FL9's, road numbers 484 - 489?
Sold to Morristown and Erie, 4 units stored and two active on their subsidiary
Maine Eastern railroad
http://67.15.20.45/images/images2/m/ME-Eastern-489-EXN.jpg.82241.jpg
FL-9s in New Haven Paint have found a home with two museum railroads in Connecticut. One pulls Tourist Trains north out of Waterbury. Note the ditch lights etc.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
PBeham wrote "Now, if the NYSSR has it's way GCT will not be all M.U. cars (except for a very few trains," border="0" width="15" height="15" /> soon). But this war is stuck in the bureaucratic mud, so it's muddling along at the expense of all NYSSR tax payers."
I dont' understand what this meant (maybe there's a missing word). New York is trying to get rid of the Gennies? Or New York wants less MU cars? If you get a chance, could you elaborate?
thanks
A ConnDOT New Haven FL9, formally used by the Metro North Commuter Railroad. When rebuilt with State money, the "as deliver" paint job was called for. Shown hauling a scenic train on the Naugatuck Railroad at the Thomeston Dam.
www.rmne.org Railroad Museum of New England
PBenham wrote:Wow. FL9s and I go way back. I saw my first one on the Hell Gate Bridge in 1964, leading some mail-express traffic. Then, later they were the queens of Grand Central after Spamtrak retired the last (NYC ex-CUT) P motors. I really got a kick out of watching them on "Empire Service" trains out of Albany-Rensselaer. The shop forces in A-R had to battle with those old girls by then, but they could outperform the GE dual modes that try to replace them. (MUCH to GE's never-ending disgust) Now, if the NYSSR has it's way GCT will not be all M.U. cars (except for a very few trains, soon). But this war is stuck in the bureaucratic mud, so it's muddling along at the expense of all NYSSR tax payers!
I don't know where you got your Idea's but as locomotive engineer for Metro North I can assure you that the Genesis outperforms a pair of FL-9's any day.
I have been operating FL-9's since 1989 and Genesis since 1996 but give me a Genesis anytime, they pull good, they can get me up the hills on Danbury branch and have made diesel operations on MNCR about 3 times better due to less breakdowns than the FL-9's. The failure rate numbers don't lie, out MDBF rate went about 300% better with the GE's
Every GE on MNCR still operates in electric mode, while the FL-9 never lasted more than a week after coming out of the shop.
The air quality in GCT is about 10 times better since the polluting two stroke engines and HEP units are no longer allowed in to the Terminal.
GMTRacing wrote:Well the Genny may outperform the FL-9 (which was a problem child from the get go), but in my opinion the Genesis are among the homeliest devices ever built. We have 2006 in the Rail museum here (the one that caught fire in GCT after rebuild) but other MK FL-9 rebuilts are still running to Danbury mostly on the weekends and they look absolutely magnificent pulling into sight. I'd be willing to bet that if they rebodied the Genesis, ridership would increase. Who can get excited about getting towed or pushed to work by a demented toaster? J.R.
As a daily Metra commuter, I can honestly respond that almost nobody cares. While I enjoy the ride to and from work and the various motive power, other trains, etc. that I see from my ride, the average daily rider is more interested in on-time performance. If a Genesis does a better job of that than the FL9, than the daily commuter will be very pleased with a Genesis, even if its appearance isn't particularly distinguished.
Were do you get that the Genesis is a problem child ??? the MDBF is 300% better than the FL-9m. And the FL-9 is beyond fixing when it comes to EPA mandated polution control.
Any railbuff that believes a 1940's technology locomotive can outperform a 1990's technology locomotive lives in a dreamland.
The 2006 will never run again as the rear half burnerd out and DRM has no way of changing tracktion motors and other non metal parts in truck. it dod not catch fire in GCT the 2006 burned when oil leaks ignited due to brake's on a Wassaic shuttle out of Brewster.
2012 has HEP radiator leaks but is otherwise good unit.
And anyone who believes the commuter cares what pulls their train is again in dreamland the commuter could not care if there was a span of Budweister Clydesdales in front as long as their choo choo is on time.
The Genesis and P42ac were designed to be easely cleaned and fixed the facetted front end does both., A FL-9 with all its bondo does not meet collission strenght as mandated by FRA, and a new locomotive would in no way look like any of the old behemoths.
Issues with bulldog nose and ALCO PA nose is visibility, in commuter service trains stop at points were commuters walk around locomotives , just so they can get home one minute earlier.
Would you like a line shut down every time one of these idiots is run over, been there done that.
The bulldog nose may have looked great on a stremliner but for engineer its a hinderence, visibility difference between FL-9 (80 feet) or a Genesis (35 feet) is more than worth it to be ugly.
The commuter does not care if the locomotive is a square noisy box with no nose what so ever, as long as they get there on time.
As for the railfan, railroads don't care, if you want estethics go to your local museum and drool all you want
You all are right, a 50 year old locomotive is "un-maintainable", but they are graceful.
EPA requirements can be meet during a rebuild with enough money, electrical parts from another era, long out of production is another story. Cab armor and corrosion repair is expensive. Still, Commuter railroads have successfully rebuilt F40PH, F40PHL, and GP40MC for service.
But then again, the "Acela" and "HP8' is modern, graceful, and looks like its moving standing still. Sheet metal and fiberglass, a locomotive, an automobile, it's just as easy to make a beautyful one as an ugly one.
Visibility is a real issue in a lot of other places, too. The Alco DL500 (World Locomotive) is equipped with a second cab in its flat end, like an AB6. In Australia, engine drivers prefer to operate with the flat end forward because of the better visibility.
Cost is another reason why the EMD bulldog nose and Alco/GE flatnose are not going to be revived anytime soon. The compound curves of the EMD bulldog nose require a lot of manual labor and while the flatnose was easier to manufacture, it still requires more expense to produce. The nose of MPI's passenger locomotives was designed with cost and collision standards in mind, and they came out with a pretty sharp-looking nose on those locomotives. I may be burned in effigy for saying this but I feel that EMD came out with a fairly nice design with the FP45, SDP40F and F40PH.
The true test to determine the winner in the "Genesis vs. FL9" contest spoken of above will be how well the Genesis units perform after they have been in service for about 40 years as the FL9's had been. Somehow I doubt the Genesis units will even be around that long. Why do I say that, just look at how many GE "U boats" are still around that were built in the same general time frame as the FL9's (give or take ten years or so). The answer, very few if any!
The Genasis may be more reliable, but the FL9s are SO much cooler! I don't know why, but I like it, even though I've only seen 2. I have actually seen the FL9s owned by Morristown and Erie. I was driving to the Whippany Railroad Museum when I caught a glimpse of ex-Amtrak Fs through the trees.
Thanks for confirming that they were FL9s. I saw them again when we were riding the "Easter Bunny Express"
eolafan wrote: The true test to determine the winner in the "Genesis vs. FL9" contest spoken of above will be how well the Genesis units perform after they have been in service for about 40 years as the FL9's had been. Somehow I doubt the Genesis units will even be around that long. Why do I say that, just look at how many GE "U boats" are still around that were built in the same general time frame as the FL9's (give or take ten years or so). The answer, very few if any!
Not a true test, only reason the FL-9 was around that long is that it had to be fixed no matter what cost.
No other engines fit into GCT untill GE stepped up to plate with the Genesis.
Even with a 15 year lifespan a single Genesis beats cost of two FL-9's that were needed to pull same train.
One engine replacing two at a far less maintenace expence of the GE.
Currently the GE's are being rebuilt so they may last longer, but I sure hope they replace any engine after about 15 years so next generation of railroaders do not have to deal with old power but get the latest technology.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: but I feel that EMD came out with a fairly nice design with the FP45, SDP40F and F40PH.
but I feel that EMD came out with a fairly nice design with the FP45, SDP40F and F40PH.
Wow calling a GE bad looking and calling the notched box like those EMD's locomotives ???
You were obviously not around when these notched boxes hit the road and every railfan cried.
Dutchrailnut wrote: Currently the GE's are being rebuilt so they may last longer, but I sure hope they replace any engine after about 15 years so next generation of railroaders do not have to deal with old power but get the latest technology.
Now that is a cost affective plan! The newest technology does not always equal the best equipment in a railroaders world. Just go ask most freight engineers around today what their favorite locomotive to operate is. You will get hear from many of them "SD40-2" which is a 30+ year old locomotive.
Bert
An "expensive model collector"
Dutchrailnut wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: but I feel that EMD came out with a fairly nice design with the FP45, SDP40F and F40PH. Wow calling a GE bad looking and calling the notched box like those EMD's locomotives ??? You were obviously not around when these notched boxes hit the road and every railfan cried.
I was in high school when the FP45's were delivered and out of college for only a year or two when I saw the first F40PH's at 18th Street. Considering that the alternative choice at the time was straight hood units like the SDP40, SDP45 and U28CG, I thought that the FP45's and F40PH's were pretty neat. I also was aware even in my youth that the E's and F's were aging rapidly and nobody was going to go back to carbody-type construction. I was not one of those railfans who cried because I was happy enough to see passenger locomotives that looked more the part than hood units with steam generators.
n012944 wrote: Dutchrailnut wrote: Currently the GE's are being rebuilt so they may last longer, but I sure hope they replace any engine after about 15 years so next generation of railroaders do not have to deal with old power but get the latest technology. Now that is a cost affective plan! The newest technology does not always equal the best equipment in a railroaders world. Just go ask most freight engineers around today what their favorite locomotive to operate is. You will get hear from many of them "SD40-2" a 30+ year old locomotive. Bert
Now that is a cost affective plan! The newest technology does not always equal the best equipment in a railroaders world. Just go ask most freight engineers around today what their favorite locomotive to operate is. You will get hear from many of them "SD40-2" a 30+ year old locomotive.
Good point. I know that lots of railroader hate the "knee knocker" control stands on the newer units. I know I hate seeing SD70s or ES44DCs on EVERY SINGLE train I see on CSX. Only a few still have good ol' standard noses. I don't mind the GE noses, but some of the SD70s are just plain UGLY! Where did all the SD40-2s go?!
Sorry if this got off topic.
To each their own I guess, but to me, the GE's look like the box that the locomotives came in!!
While I don't particularly care for Cesar Vergara's designs, he did make a valid point in TRAINS some time back in that the design should be compatible with the manufacturing process, which unfortunately explains why the last domestic bulldog nose was built in 1964.
Were there 10 FL9's rebuilt with AC motors, and were all of them scrapped ?
What happened to the motors, and the 710 engines ?
Mr. Benham and Mr. Dutchrailnut ----
You guys are only arguing with yourselves. No body is disputing you.
The EMD "Bulldog" and ALCO PA and FA noses are great looking and incredibally expensive to build.
Even my son, who has absolutely no interest in RR's thinks the Genisis units are so ugly that he is suprised that the track doesn't just roll up in front of them trying to escape.
What about the VIA crews who operate trains pulled by Genesis locomotives?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.