611 & 614 Mothballed. Again!

Hambone wrote:Ok, how can the cost of a brand new locomotive be cheaper than just overhauling an existing unit? All you have to do is gut it, put in new components. No new steel, everything is still there.
I regularly drive my 69' vw bus to the end of the earth, still solid, still runs like a champ. Of course it's on it's 3rd engine, but what the hell?
Someone clue me in!

Cost of purchase of a new loco is more than a rebuild, but operational costs will be lower in the newer locomotives. At some point an old loco costs more in lost time and maintenace/operational costs such that it becomes uneconomical to continue operation. Otherwise all transit agencies would be running their E&F units 10 rebuilds later. I might add the 40C's have been rebuilt 2 or 3 times already.

So new locos generate more HP (can haul more coaches), generate HEP at lower RPM (using less fuel), use less fuel under load, have lower emisions, meet more stringent crash protection requirements, require less maintenace (hopefully!) etc etc

Since controlling operational cost is a major factor for commuter agencies such as metra, where they have mandated operational cost recoveries, and capital expendeture comes from a different bucket, spending capital (when available) to lower operational cost is nessesary.

F40CFan wrote:I've got a postcard/fact sheet that was given out when the F40Cs were new. I remember the conductors handing them to everyone. If someone tells me how to save an image here, I'll post it.

You need to upload it to a host site, then you can insert the image in your message using the "Img" button on the reply screen. If you'd like to e-mail it to me, I'll post it.

I can't find my copy of that postcard right now, but here's a brochure from the same time.

metrarider wrote:

Hambone wrote:Ok, how can the cost of a brand new locomotive be cheaper than just overhauling an existing unit? All you have to do is gut it, put in new components. No new steel, everything is still there.
I regularly drive my 69' vw bus to the end of the earth, still solid, still runs like a champ. Of course it's on it's 3rd engine, but what the hell?
Someone clue me in!

Cost of purchase of a new loco is more than a rebuild, but operational costs will be lower in the newer locomotives. At some point an old loco costs more in lost time and maintenace/operational costs such that it becomes uneconomical to continue operation. Otherwise all transit agencies would be running their E&F units 10 rebuilds later. I might add the 40C's have been rebuilt 2 or 3 times already.

So new locos generate more HP (can haul more coaches), generate HEP at lower RPM (using less fuel), use less fuel under load, have lower emisions, meet more stringent crash protection requirements, require less maintenace (hopefully!) etc etc

Since controlling operational cost is a major factor for commuter agencies such as metra, where they have mandated operational cost recoveries, and capital expendeture comes from a different bucket, spending capital (when available) to lower operational cost is nessesary.

I understand that, but if you replace all the components, including the prime mover and electronics, you esentially have a new and modern locomotive in an old shell so to speak. BNs F9s were rebuilt with new engines from Morrison Knudsen, and had many more functional years left.

Well, also consider that after time goes by, critical components of the locomotives wear out, to the point where refurbishing them isn't an option. Remember PRR's GG1s? Even though most of them had been kept in running condition for their entire service lives, one of the more major reasons they were retired was because their trucks were cracking. You can maintain the hell out of a locomotive, but the sheer forces of physics will take their toll after a while and the trucks and frame will begin to get defects from all the usage.

Another factor that favors buying new vs. rebuilding also has to do with the basic frame of the existing locomotive. When those F40Cs were built, they were only meant to be equipped with 1974 locomotive technology. While possible, fitting new, 2005 locomotive components into the carbody is a major inconvenience to the shop forces, who have to put up with an internal setup that was heavily modified to accomodate new components. The frame would need to be strengthened and modified in some places, and internally the engines would be messy, with parts stuck where they would fit and not where they should logistically be placed. An entirely new locomotive, built on new trucks and a frame designed specifically for current components, is the best way to go because it's all designed to work together, and there's no needing to match up what's new and old.

Also, even if the F40Cs were sent off for a total rebuilding, they would probably come back with MP36-style fiberglass fronts and without the stainless steel side panels. I think it's better the way it turned out because at least there are "stock" C's that can be put in a museum and preserved in their mostly original condition.

The F40c might be 30 years old but look ween the so call new mps broke down look what ran in place of them thats bad ween that happies and this is not the 1st snow with the mps and the new ones that everone is getting what will there to brake down more there ever thats what metra gets for buying some junk all there ever going to do is brake down more and more and then 611 and 614 will come save the junks like allways and junk becasue there mp have 3600 hp the 40c run alot better and keep the train on time thats why MPI is call More Problems Inherited

metra 613 wrote:The F40c might be 30 years old but look ween the so call new mps broke down look what ran in place of them thats bad ween that happies ... thats why MPI is call More Problems Inherited

Your arguments might be a little stronger if they were comprehensible.

I'm no great fan of the MP36's, but I don't think they deserve quite the bad rap they're getting here. Sure, they're having their share of teething troubles, but that tends to be the case with most new, untested equipment. The F40C's served the Milwaukee lines well for 30 years. To rebuild them a third time and bring them up to current specs, though, would be a costly, cumbersome and impractical choice. Let's let Metra work the bugs out of the new engines, and save the complaining for 25 or 30 years from now, when the MP36's are up for retirement.

MikeF, thats a nice brochure. Thanks for posting it. I'll try to get the "postcard" to you.

In a way you're right. We just have to deal with the MPs for now. I really do doubt that they'll get 30 years of of them, though.

Hopefully, Metra will have enough class to place at least one of the remaining F40Cs in a museum. I wish it was #50(610), the "City of Wood Dale" looks a lot better on its side than on a Winnebago. But at least its not on the side of an MP.

metra 613 wrote:The F40c might be 30 years old but look ween the so call new mps broke down look what ran in place of them thats bad ween that happies and this is not the 1st snow with the mps and the new ones that everone is getting what will there to brake down more there ever thats what metra gets for buying some junk all there ever going to do is brake down more and more and then 611 and 614 will come save the junks like allways and junk becasue there mp have 3600 hp the 40c run alot better and keep the train on time thats why MPI is call More Problems Inherited

Eh, well, out here we went with the rebuild old locomotives, and all the MBTA got was 25 shop queens. Of the 25 ex-CN GP40's rebuilt in the late 90's, two are already in the dead line, probably never to run again. From the way people talk about them, trying to cram all the 21st Century technology into them just didn't work, and they managed to make a lemon out of one of the most reliable locomotives ever built.

Who knows...the MBTA units may have in some small part motivated Merta, Caltrain, and maybe others, to reconsider the "infinate rebuilding" strategy.

yea right the mps are luckly to last 5 years the way there benn running

I run both MP36's, and of course have run the F40C's. The MP36's do deserve the bad rap they are getting. We've had them for 2 years now with nothing but trouble. The F40C's were breaking down at the end, but that was because of neglect. So far the MP36's have bypassed the F40C's as far as breakdowns.

And as far as rebuilding the F40C's? It would have been a good move financially. For a complete knuckle to knuckle rebuild would have cost about 1.3 million, vs. 3 mil for a new high tech locomotive that might run.

I've been running these things for 2 years now, and I hate them. They are very uncomfortable, and I go home with a sore upper back because of the damn desktop. I will say that I would rather have a Winnebago, and I'm not a big fan of those either. As far as these new engines are concerned, Metra deserve's everything that is happening to them!

Bones, do you know how reliable the F40Cs were in the beginning? I started riding in April 1978 and they were real reliable then. And were, until as you said, the end when they were neglected.

hey bones i know u wish u had 611 or 14 back so u can run them and wont have a bad back then

I was lucky enough to see 614 on it's final westbound trip the night before she was mothballed. The day before (Monday) we had tried with no success, because instead of 614 leading 418, 427 lead 418, which was pretty cool. The next night (Tuesday) we say 614 in Roselle. By we, I mean myself and my friend, Kevin.

BTW: USE PUNCTUATION!

From what the old heads tell me, there were no problems with the F40C's on the begining. Also remember that the F40C is really an SD40-2 in a different dress.

Bones wrote:
"I will say that I would rather have a Winnebago"

The Apocalypse must be approaching....

I never thought in a million years I'd hear him say that!!!