FL9 F-10 Discussion: Metro-North / CtDOT / Amtrak

Why would any railroad buy a locomotive powered by an engine (567)that is not at least tier 0 compliant.

DutchRailnut wrote:Why would any railroad buy a locomotive powered by an engine (567)that is not at least tier 0 compliant.

That maybe so, but they'd make great lawn toys!!!

Aren't a couple of ex Amtrak FL-9s still running in Maine? And don't they still have the 567 engine?

Clean Cab wrote:

blockline4180 wrote:So all 6 of the NH FL-9M's are still sitting in New Haven since 2009?? Why is CDOT keeping them there so long?? Are they looking for buyers or just waiting to be sent to scrap???

CDOT has listed their 6 FL-9M's for sale, but have had no takers. CDOT cannot donate them as the FTA loans used to rebuild them in the early 1990's has not yet been paid off.

So they're stuck in NHV until the loans are paid off?

I think we might want to be a wee bit cautious at accepting this as gospel. I'd like to see a source or reference for that, ConnDot can't donate them until the FTA loans are paid off.

First, it's been about twenty-years since the locomotives were rebuilt, that's a long time to structure a loan for equipment that was already forty-years-old when it was rebuilt. Second, FTA more often gives grants not loans. But they do usually place a lot of restrictions on what can be done with the equipment as a condition of making the grant. That is in place basically to protect the taxpayers (whose money it is).

I can't think of a railroad example, but about thirty years ago, when New York City Transit wanted to get rid of their Grumman Flxible buses (because of many problems) they had to repay to FTA the money supplied that was used to acquire them. But the money was supplied as a grant not a loan. The condition was the buses had to have a prescribed service life, which is the usual condition (at least for FTA-financed transit buses). New York City was getting rid of them long before the agreed service life ended so the FTA had to be paid back and was.

But who knows?

The FL-9m's were rebuilt in 1996, I believe.

I don't know where the information comes from but the first message in this thread (see below) shows the units being rebuilt in 1992-93. I think that's the usual date you find in various references and books.

They began receiving the dual-mode Gennies in 1996 didn't they?

milkyoreo27 wrote:I've gathered all the information of the units brought to New Haven, in case anybody would like to know.

Owner: CDOT
Type: FL9m
Paint: NH
Number: 2011

Rebuilt in 1993. Built as NH 2038, later PC 5038, CR 5038.


Owner: CDOT
Type: FL9m
Paint: NH
Number: 2014/521 (MN)

Rebuilt in 1992. Caught fire in 1998. Repainted in 1999. Built as NH 2041, later PC 5041, CR 5041, MN 521, MN 2014.


Owner: CTDOT
Type: FL9M
Paint: NH
Number: 2016 (MN)

Rebuilt in 1992. Front truck damaged by electrical fire. Built as NH 2044, later PC 5044, CR 5044.


Owner: CDOT
Type: FL9m
Paint: NH
Number: 2024

Rebuilt in 1993. Caught fire in 2007, Unknown if brought back into service. Built as NH 2058, later PC 5058, CR 5058, MN 534.
EDIT: Was brought back into service, but may not have been as functional as it used to be.


Owner: CDOT
Type: FL9m
Paint: NH
Number: 2026

Rebuilt in 1993. Front truck damaged by electrical fire. Built as NH 2007, later PC 5007, CR 5007.

Owner: CDOT
Type: FL9m
Paint: NH
Number: 2027

Rebuilt in 1993. Built as NH 2015, later PC 5015, CR 5015.

They had a second date added to that when Cummins KTA HEP was replaced by tier 0 compliant Caterpillar HEP in 1996.
again with FTA funding.

Tommy Meehan wrote:First, it's been about twenty-years since the locomotives were rebuilt, that's a long time to structure a loan for equipment that was already forty-years-old when it was rebuilt.

DutchRailnut wrote:They had a second date added to that when Cummins KTA HEP was replaced by tier 0 compliant Caterpillar HEP in 1996.
again with FTA funding.

Okay seventeen years.

Metro North took first order of the P32AC-DM's back in 95. 201-205.

Was there ever a reason given as to why MN and CDOT didn't use the original NH numbers? As long as it was decided to do away with the 500 series numbering it would only seem to make sense to do so.

The numbering was based on which FL-9's were suppose to last longest.

DutchRailnut wrote:The numbering was based on which FL-9's were suppose to last longest.

What's that in terms of minutes, hours, days, or years?

Probably measured in terms of projected oil consumption as measured in barrels...

Here's an old chestnut.

Someone in this thread: Boston Surface Railroad: Worcester-Providence Commuter Rail has posited that "rumor" has it that they'd be using MNRR FL9's for power. I haven't caught a whiff of that anywhere. As far as I know the remaining CtDOT units are in no shape for resurrection.

first that route would need acses, second it would need FL-9m's to be equipped with acses , kind of spending money on pipe dream .