MBTA's MPI HSP-46 Locomotives

drvmusic wrote:

GP40MC1118 wrote:Built as GP18 for GTW. Then rebuilt as a GP19 by Peaker Services for SEMTA.
De-rated by MBTA to a GP9.

D

Mystery solved. Thanks :D

Old reliable 567 prime mover. Beat it up and it comes back for more. Tier 0, and it doesn't fog its own headlights!

Easy to do when you're shaped like a brick on a skateboard.

According to NETransit, 20 of 40 units have now been accepted.

Over/under on all 40 by the end of 2015?

The 2018 is out of Altoona. This is the last HSP46 come out of Altoona and the
last unit to be delivered to the MBTA. Was in Enola, Pa. yesterday.

D

GP40MC1118 wrote:The 2018 is out of Altoona. This is the last HSP46 come out of Altoona and the
last unit to be delivered to the MBTA. Was in Enola, Pa. yesterday.

D

As we speak 12R-09 has it in Halifax, Pa.

Might be old news, but the 2003 has finally entered service south

The 2030 went belly up today.

D

It also died last Tuesday. It completely failed then as well, it was back the next day. It took several of us to get the brakes to release on the unit in North Station after the 904 was hooked onto it.

sery2831 wrote:It also died last Tuesday. It completely failed then as well, it was back the next day. It took several of us to get the brakes to release on the unit in North Station after the 904 was hooked onto it.

At least from the sound of it, it looks like the HSP's issues aren't much more than the kinds of teething problems you'd expect from a loco integrating an all-new truck/brake design, an all-new carbody/frame layout, and the first-ever application of a GEVO engine and GE AC traction motors in passenger service with HEP.

After reading about the ACS-64s AMD their, uh, "issues", these HSPs are looking as rock-solid reliable as GP-9s in comparison.

That said, I can see how they're fouling up their headlights so quickly. I was watching one pulling a mostly-bilevel consist westbound out of Yawkey the other day, and it was throwing off as much smoke as the screamers!

Bramdeisroberts wrote:

sery2831 wrote:It also died last Tuesday. It completely failed then as well, it was back the next day. It took several of us to get the brakes to release on the unit in North Station after the 904 was hooked onto it.

At least from the sound of it, it looks like the HSP's issues aren't much more than the kinds of teething problems you'd expect from a loco integrating an all-new truck/brake design, an all-new carbody/frame layout, and the first-ever application of a GEVO engine and GE AC traction motors in passenger service with HEP.

After reading about the ACS-64s AMD their, uh, "issues", these HSPs are looking as rock-solid reliable as GP-9s in comparison.

That said, I can see how they're fouling up their headlights so quickly. I was watching one pulling a mostly-bilevel consist westbound out of Yawkey the other day, and it was throwing off as much smoke as the screamers!

Does anybody test their emissions compliance?

BandA wrote:

Bramdeisroberts wrote:

sery2831 wrote:It also died last Tuesday. It completely failed then as well, it was back the next day. It took several of us to get the brakes to release on the unit in North Station after the 904 was hooked onto it.

At least from the sound of it, it looks like the HSP's issues aren't much more than the kinds of teething problems you'd expect from a loco integrating an all-new truck/brake design, an all-new carbody/frame layout, and the first-ever application of a GEVO engine and GE AC traction motors in passenger service with HEP.

After reading about the ACS-64s AMD their, uh, "issues", these HSPs are looking as rock-solid reliable as GP-9s in comparison.

That said, I can see how they're fouling up their headlights so quickly. I was watching one pulling a mostly-bilevel consist westbound out of Yawkey the other day, and it was throwing off as much smoke as the screamers!

Does anybody test their emissions compliance?

I wouldn't go that far calling them GP9 reliable in comparison. They've been taking turns having issues, all teething, as expected, but the HSPs got it worse. Let's take some context here. 2039 left MPI last November, 639 left Siemens in March. 2039 hasn't tested yet, 640 has (632 hasn't gone for testing yet, hence why I'm having 640 stand in as the 40th Sprinter to run). If the HSPs were worthy of that praise, they'd all be in service by now, and will have been for awhile, rather than only 20 HSPs in service to 35 Spritners and the last straggler HSP coming up from Altoona as were speaking here.

Both are not off the shelf locomotives, they're new platforms, more so the Sprinters, all new locomotives take time to get right, let's not forget back in the day when the AEM7s and F40s got plenty of scorn in the face of the Es and Gs, when they were the new kids on the block, and now look at how highly respected they are. Give them time, both locomotives will get it together and inspire that same sense of awe, if not in our generation of railfans, the generation behind us. Now back to the topic.

Had the 2036 yesterday, I was very impressed at how she ran. A much smoother, and softer ride than the first batch...specially notice the difference going over frogs in the x'overs, less of a bang

The 2027 is now in service down South too, 22 units accepted and 18 left to go.

MBTA F40PH-2C 1050 wrote:Had the 2036 yesterday, I was very impressed at how she ran. A much smoother, and softer ride than the first batch...specially notice the difference going over frogs in the x'overs, less of a bang

Is there a known physical difference between them?