On freight service the Conductor is in the cab with the Engineer. (no Caboose)
Passenger service, one man in the cab (with exceptions). An "Alerter" to keep him awake. Pass a Restrictive Signal an Alarm goes off. He (she) must reset the Alarm. If a Restrictive Signal is in "ATC" territory, it will make the correction if he (she) doesn't.
On the "Acela", the conductor has an "office" in the Club Car, in it he has a duplicate of the Engineer's CRT screen to monitor what the Engineer does.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
So, the conductor repeats the signal back to the engineer even though he, the conductor, cannot see the signal? If that is acceptable practice, then I imagine that the rule says to do just that, but leaves out any mention that the conductor should actually observe the signal. Personally, I find that unacceptable. Two crew members should observe and interpret each signal and then agree on what they see. Simply repeating the words doesn't accomplish anything.
I thought one could walk from the front of the train through doors into the engine and to the cab.
cordon wrote: I notice that the Diesel engine in the Genesis runs at constant speed. Idle or full power, it's the same. What is the reason for this?Only the engineer in the cab on AMTRAK? Is that really true? I would expect the conductor or assistant conductor to go to the cab now and then just to make sure everything is OK. With one person in the cab, how do they follow the rule on some RRs that the conductor has to verify signals as they appear?
I notice that the Diesel engine in the Genesis runs at constant speed. Idle or full power, it's the same. What is the reason for this?
Only the engineer in the cab on AMTRAK? Is that really true? I would expect the conductor or assistant conductor to go to the cab now and then just to make sure everything is OK.
With one person in the cab, how do they follow the rule on some RRs that the conductor has to verify signals as they appear?
The way the rule is followed is when the engineer sees the signal he gets on the radio to the conductor and relays the signal to him. The conductor then repeats the singal back to the engineer. If the train is moving how does the conductor get into the cab. The locomotive is actually fitted with an alerter. If the engineer does not move a lever, or blow the horn with in I belive 45 to 60 seconds it will show a red light, and then start making this horrible noise. If the engineer does not reset it with in a certain period of time the trains and locomotive brakes are applied at a supression rate. Basically the train will apply full braking with the air exhausting at a service rate instead of an emergency rate. And the Enginer will go into Idle until everything is recovered.
I'm sure other people have said this before, but I want to go on record with it.
Train cabs should have two people in them for safety reasons.
Thanks for the info on HEP and engine speed.
The engine in a Genesis runs at constant speed for the same reason it does on an F40PH: the auxiliary HEP alternator is also turned by the prime mover's crankshaft and constant speed is necessary for heat, lights and air conditioning on the trailing cars.
Metra also has only one person in the cab, and unless he's operating from a control coach, it would be difficult for the conductor to look in on him.
Ham549 wrote:Ok the F40PH desighn was the best people all seem to agree that the Genes#!+ sucks. The F40ph has great colishion protection can out preform and out run (at least out run in the short hall) a P42. The P42s cab is cramped and uses badely placed desktop controlls and are haveing mantance problems. The people up in canada must be haveing fun lafeing at us as they go by in there F40PHs.
Have you actually operated the P42's. There cabs are actually pretty roomy since there is only one person in the cab at all times. But they give you 3 seats just in case you have some riders. And with all the engine noise, you can not hear hardly any of it from the cab, but if you open the engine room door, you can hear it plain as day.
Oltmannd makes some interesting points regarding the FL9, especially points 2 and 3. The FL9 has come across as a specialized, complex locomotive sold to a railroad that could not afford to maintain them properly. I will agree with the postings that imply that the FL9 lasted as long as it has primarily because nobody wanted to design the specialized replacement needed to fit that niche. I will opine that the Amtrak and Metro North P32's will enjoy a long life for a similar reason.
As far as Point 3, almost anything looked better in "McGinniss Madness", in either New Haven or Boston & Maine colors. Even H. Reid's mis-shapen bricks (the EF-4's) looked good in NH colors.
A few observations and opinions:
1. "Harmon FL9 maintenance" may be an oxymoron. Of all the shops I've been in, and I've been in some lousy ones, Harmon was the worst. Rensselaer seemed to do a bit better with their rebuild 6.
2. I can't decide whether the FL9s design can best be decribed as a "kitbash gone wrong" or "back of coctail napkin after work at LaGrange".
3. They looked really cool in their NH paint. MTA blue/yellow was OK when the yellow was bright. Amtrak Phase II was pretty good, but generic.
4. Of all the times I rode behind them out of GCT on Amtrak trains in the mid 70s, they were dual mode in name only. Rarely did they manage to clear the end of the platform on electric. The Amtrak owned and maintained 6 actually did manage to clear the Park Ave tunnel on electric every time I rode behind them in the late 80s and early 90s.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: What about the VIA crews who operate trains pulled by Genesis locomotives?
What about the VIA crews who operate trains pulled by Genesis locomotives?
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.
Were there 10 FL9's rebuilt with AC motors, and were all of them scrapped ?
What happened to the motors, and the 710 engines ?
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.
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.
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.
To each their own I guess, but to me, the GE's look like the box that the locomotives came in!!
An "expensive model collector"
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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"
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.