MBTA's MPI HSP-46 Locomotives

That's a good point. I suppose that's why I asked.

TrainManTy wrote:

RRCOMM wrote:If this news is true it is very serious indeed and points to some kind of systemic failure regarding these new units and their care.

One incident — which we don't know the details of — points to a systemic failure?

Leave it to Railroad.net to spin EVERY SINGLE rumor and incident that we hear about third-hand into a complete condemnation of a locomotive/coach/railroad/carbuilder/loco builder/engine choice...

Sometimes I'm embarrassed to be a member here.

Hes a relatively green poster.. Give him a little slack.

Now as for 2001, we often forget, especially in the case of new power, that no two locomotives are the exact same, as much as wed like them to be. It is all too easy to point fingers at the HSPs in general because yes, lets be honest, 2001 had the most time on the road and is the one as such with all the attention on it. Yet, as I already said, every locomotive is different, just because 2001 had an issue with its motor doesnt mean the entire fleet will, what will be telling is what the incident investigation comes up with and whether other units suffer similar failures.

So locomotives run straight water vs. a water/glycol antifreeze mix for their coolant?
Is that for the higher specific heat capacity of water vs. almost anything else?

any anti freeze on a engine that size would leak, ruin bearings , those leaks would not be liked by mechanical dept or EPA as it takes 180 gallons of coolant.

scrook wrote:So locomotives run straight water vs. a water/glycol antifreeze mix for their coolant?
Is that for the higher specific heat capacity of water vs. almost anything else?

I don't know what the chemical is but I can say that the HSP's don't just run on straight water for cooling. I remember in training that the GE rep said they need to be shopped every 90 days or so to flush the system.

anti corrosion and anti foaming (no not buffs)

The FL9's use(d) a non-straight-water antifreeze in their systems. I believe it is, or was, glycol based, but I'm not 100% certain.

I had 2004 on train 1401 this morning. Left ditch light is out already.

The FL-9's did NOT use anti-freeze, just pink anti corrosion stuff, the HEP unit had antifreeze.
it is basically impossible to run any antifreeze in big engines as it will leak get in oil and pit the bearings , mainly crank case.

8th Notch wrote:

scrook wrote:So locomotives run straight water vs. a water/glycol antifreeze mix for their coolant?
Is that for the higher specific heat capacity of water vs. almost anything else?

I don't know what the chemical is but I can say that the HSP's don't just run on straight water for cooling. I remember in training that the GE rep said they need to be shopped every 90 days or so to flush the system.

The coolant system is sealed. It does not run on straight water. To dump this system there is an emergency pull valve on the ceiling of the engine room firemans side, rear of the engine block. There is NO water fill valve on this engine block. If it dumps it's coolant, it has to be towed back to the shop. This happened a lot on the 2001 in testing last winter.

Is this in addition to something like an Ogontz Polar Bear dump valve down low where gravity can do its stuff when the ambient temperature drops below say 37 degrees F?

It looks like the 2017 has been added to a set to begin testing.

The 40 new commuter rail locomotives delivered to the MBTA late last year at a cost of $222 million have all been sidelined to have their traction motor bearings replaced after the manufacturer discovered last summer that at least some of the bearings are faulty.

The major repairs are the latest roadblock in a years-long effort by the MBTA to acquire a fleet of new locomotives to revitalize its rail service, which has had chronic difficulty with on-time performance.

.........

So far, just eight of the locomotives have been repaired. The work will delay the debut of the full complement of locomotives until late this year.

The MBTA knew about the defective bearings last August, but chose to make no public disclosure until the Globe learned about the problems last week.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/0 ... story.html

ns3010 wrote:

The 40 new commuter rail locomotives delivered to the MBTA late last year at a cost of $222 million have all been sidelined to have their traction motor bearings replaced after the manufacturer discovered last summer that at least some of the bearings are faulty.

The major repairs are the latest roadblock in a years-long effort by the MBTA to acquire a fleet of new locomotives to revitalize its rail service, which has had chronic difficulty with on-time performance.

.........

So far, just eight of the locomotives have been repaired. The work will delay the debut of the full complement of locomotives until late this year.

The MBTA knew about the defective bearings last August, but chose to make no public disclosure until the Globe learned about the problems last week.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/0 ... story.html

So, the Globe in all it's "Wisdom" didn't bother to look for what we already knew? Wow... Really good journalism right there. That, and they slapped the "Diesel Electric Hybrid" logo right on them... They obviously don't know how to research anything anyway.

daylight4449 wrote:So, the Globe in all it's "Wisdom" didn't bother to look for what we already knew? Wow... Really good journalism right there. That, and they slapped the "Diesel Electric Hybrid" logo right on them... They obviously don't know how to research anything anyway.

Sure, we knew this here, but the T definitely seems to have gone out of its way to conceal the information from the public at large.