MBTA's MPI HSP-46 Locomotives

[Arlington]

2533 posts…169 pages…All about a routine equipment replacement?
Do I get the impression that some of you are rooting (screaming) for these things to fail?

Maybe from posters, but I suspect most lurkers are more like me: we like trains and shiny things, and shiny trains best of all.

A lot of those pages were devoted to the early units and their testing, and their first trips, and first use, and then in the delivery process for the rest of them.
Along the way, I've been educated on the delivery process that we hadn't seen in a looong time (010 an 011 and the MARC units don't count)
(so between Stage III and custom and too-long-since-last-time, it doesn't seem quite routine, but we get the point)

[GP40MC1118]

Look, I am only reporting what I was told. And its being towed in from
Fitchburg by an Snowbuster Extra that went Boston to Fitchburg and
return. On the return trip, it was turned around and headed to Fitchburg
to do an engine swap (The snowbuster had an engine on either end).
As to why the 2008 froze up, I don't know.

I was surprised as anyone to see the 2001 back in service so quickly.

D

[Jersey_Mike]

2533 posts…

169 pages…

All about a routine equipment replacement?

Do I get the impression that some of you are rooting (screaming) for these things to fail?

It would have probably been easier for all parties involved if the MBTA had just decided to convert its existing fleet into F33PH-3CECOs.

[Quiet Screamer]

Look, I am only reporting what I was told. And its being towed in from
Fitchburg by an Snowbuster Extra that went Boston to Fitchburg and
return. On the return trip, it was turned around and headed to Fitchburg
to do an engine swap (The snowbuster had an engine on either end).
As to why the 2008 froze up, I don't know.

I was surprised as anyone to see the 2001 back in service so quickly.

D

2008 was back in service last night, whatever it was most have been maintainer error!

[Arlington]

With 2001 and 2008 back in service, we've learned that there are a lot of ways to "freeze up" the HSP-46 in 14F weather that don't involve serious or permanent damage.

So we need to displace the scary image in popular imagination that "froze up" = "engine block cracked by frozen water".

Seems like we need a new "default" image for "froze up" that defaults to "taken out of service due to some ill-effect of very cold" Can the experts here suggest something benign, like our default image for "froze up" should be = "computer wouldn't let it run because some mechanical part was stuck or a hose was constricted"

And are there differences (in "how far the heat reaches") between the way old-fashioned idling engines keep all their parts warm and the way the HSP keeps itself warm when plugged to shore power? And is the "fix" extending the heat to these places that froze, or having the computer be more tolerant of readings that'd be abnormal in regular temperatures but, in fact, are acceptable when cold?

[MEC407]

Great points, Arlington.

Also:

Just because you heard something from someone doesn't mean you should post it on the internet. I hear interesting things all the time but I don't post most of them here because I can't always verify the accuracy of what I heard.

I know it's fun to share juicy gossip and it's fun to know things that other people don't know, but it's often best to keep it to yourself until you've seen it with your own two eyes or were given the information by an official source. (A RR employee who heard it from another employee who overheard someone else talking about it is not an official source.)

Edit: I'm not directing this at anyone in particular. Just sharing my thoughts on the ways information can become exaggerated or distorted as it's passed from person to person.

[Jersey_Mike]

So we need to displace the scary image in popular imagination that "froze up" = "engine block cracked by frozen water".

Does the EVO engine use a solid engine block or power assemblies like an EMD? I did some research on this a few months ago and I saw reference to power assemblies.

On an EMD the engine block is just a weldment. Freezing the engine might ruin the radiators, pipes and power assemblies, but all those components can be replaced.

[DutchRailnut]

nothing froze, but you know communications, Telephone, Telegraph, Tell a Railbuff and see how fast news can travel

[BRail]

The 2006 was frozen solid, a block of ice two weeks ago in Kingston. It was quietly towed, shipped to the P&W for damage assessment and repairs. There is a design flaw with the MPIs "puking" their water at low temps. They tried to correct the problem by making the dump valve less sensitive. Now they are getting frozen engine blocks.

[DutchRailnut]

on both EMD and GE the block does not contain water, only thing that contains water is pump, power assembly jackets and water jumpers. the Engine Block is a welded steel frame. only fluid it contains it oil in very few locations.

[Arlington]

The 2006 was frozen solid, a block of ice two weeks ago in Kingston. It was quietly towed, shipped to the P&W for damage assessment and repairs. There is a design flaw with the MPIs "puking" their water at low temps. They tried to correct the problem by making the dump valve less sensitive. Now they are getting frozen engine blocks.

Can I try putting this more precisely? I'm not saying this is right, I'm saying it is my best guess as to what you'd say in laymans terms. Pretend I'm Governor Baker trying to tell you back what I think I've heard:

There is a design flaw with the MPI's losing (dumping?) water at low temps. Believing that there was more risk in water-loss than in freeze-up, they tried to correct the problem by making the dump valve less likely to dump (unclear whether it is less-sensitive to cold or more restrictive on when it dumps). But in 2006's case, this meant holding water as it froze in the engine block (or just in the pump/reservoir serving the engine block?). Damage assessment will tell us what the consequences were, if any, but it appeared risky enough ( and a good thing to learn while under warranty) that they towed it rather than try to get it working

I also can't tell from the above (and this is how rumors get started, I suppose) whether "getting frozen engine blocks" is the same as saying:
1) blocks plural= has this happened more than once (and as a result of the dump valve tweak), or just that all blocks with the dump valve tweak (or all regardless?) are subject to the same risk?
2) frozen = 2006, in being "frozen solid" was sufficiently frozen that they could not assume there'd been no permanent damage done, but other s may have been less frozen?
3) engine blocks = literally the place where the cylinders are or anywhere there's water that could crack metal? Or water pump frozen solid such that no water could get to the engine block?

[Bramdeisroberts]

I wonder how much of these cold performance issues with the HSP's come from MPI's design work, and how much of these issues come from GE and stem from the fact that this is the first time the GEVO prime mover has been used in any sort of passenger duty cycle?

[ACeInTheHole]

nothing froze, but you know communications, Telephone, Telegraph, Tell a Railbuff and see how fast news can travel

Normally that argument works except this time the information wasnt handed to me by a buff and was confirmed by a railroader here. This time it sounds like nothing is terribly clear at all levels.

[MEC407]

GEVO engines have been performing in much colder weather (i.e. Canada), doing much harder work (i.e. freight) for almost a decade, so I don't think that's where the problem is coming from.

MPI designed and built the cooling system...

[Arlington]

GEVO engines have been performing in much colder weather (i.e. Canada), doing much harder work (i.e. freight) for almost a decade, so I don't think that's where the problem is coming from.

MPI designed and built the cooling system...

But is it possible that freight, in being more "non stop" is actually less likely to freeze than passenger (which involves a lot of peak rushing and off-hour-nothing)