Who decides when an engine gets retired?

[airman00]

I was curious, how does an engine actually get retired? Who makes this decision? I've seen engines that look like they've got one foot in the grave so to speak, and yet they are fixed up and put back into service and seemingly good engines are left to rot away on a dead line.

I've also seen engines that were deemed old and worn out and washed up, by one railroad, and yet another railroad will buy them and fix them up and they almost look brand new. Why retire something if someone else is going to fix it up and use it?

[DutchRailnut]

What may not work for a commuter railroad may be fine for a dinner or tourist railroad.
whats no good for a class one may still be cost effective for a shortline using it part time.
usually its mechanical dept that will thel rest of railroad its time to let it go.

[Sir Ray]

What may look rusted and worn out could only be a surface (finish) issue, and the mechanical plant (engine/generators/motors) may be in pretty good shape - same for the frame and trucks. You don't need a pretty paint finish to haul tonnage.
Now on the other hand, a locomotive with a decent looking exterior may have a blown engine, worn-out generator, or other such problems, making it not worth repairing but better for parting-out or scrapping instead.
Also consider the frame and trucks may have cracks or flaws, which would not be observable to the average rail-fan, but which would preclude putting the locomotive in steady use.

[GOLDEN-ARM]

i would say, depending on the size of the railroad, the choice comes down to the owner, the master mechanic, the chief mechanical officer, or some combination of these. locos have dated components in them. an old engine, with new sub assemblies in it, might make more sense to keep, than a newer loco, with older parts/assemblies. fuel consumption plays a part, as do locos owned outright, versus those that are leased. the cheapest to operate/maintain, will remain in service longer than those that are money pits. sometimes the cfo might get a say, as to whats needed, to make the books balance. if you own a shortline, you decide whats wanted/needed. larger roads have to rely on the info provided, through operating departments, mechanical departments and the financial departments, to decide whats best to use, and whats surplus.leased units, power by the hour, etc., are good to get rid of, if the leases provide for that option. sometimes it's cheaper to store them, than to continue running up the hours. even the price of scrap, is influential in deciding what to do, with excess power/equipment. the simple answer is, there is no simple answer. economics and power requirements are the main factors, imo.

[John_Perkowski]

I agree with Golden-Arm. Each railroad has its own deciding factors. The old Santa Fe used to love to rebuild locomotives to get more service out of them. OTOH, UP in the late 60s seemed to have a 10 year horizon on turning over its power. SP had SD-9s running into the 1990s when the wheels were falling off them. BN had SD-9s into the 90s too, but they were buying high-horsepower for their Powder River support as well.

[airman00]

I've heard (and also seen in pictures) that the Juniata terminal company, (in NJ) keeps it's eqiupment in tip-top shape, and that's why there engines and cars all look brand new all the time, and run that way too. So I imagine maintainence like that would keep even the oldest engine going for decades.

[GSC]

I've heard (and also seen in pictures) that the Juniata terminal company, (in NJ) keeps it's eqiupment in tip-top shape, and that's why there engines and cars all look brand new all the time, and run that way too. So I imagine maintainence like that would keep even the oldest engine going for decades.

Again, this would depend upon how the ledger looks. Tip-top maintenance would require the services of a good shop crew, who would not be cheap to keep. If you have the money to do that, great! A talented crew who can keep an older fleet running (hopefully that's paid for) just might be cheaper than buying newer equipment. Then again, if it costs more to keep it running than to buy something newer, you go that route. A bigger version of how long you keep your car; costs of maintenance and repair vs buying new, available finances, if you need something more powerful (or less so), changing needs (giving up the pickup for transportation for the growing family), etc.

[Triplex]

Often, a railroad will eliminate a class as part of fleet standardization efforts. For example, many railroads categorically eliminated all Alco power around the same time. This put a lot of Centuries on the second-hand market for cheap. Many shortlines that standardized on Alcos were able to buy them up, often more than they needed so the extras could be used as backups or parts sources.

[eddiebehr]

I worked for the Boston and Maine both before, during and after bankruptcy and for a number of years maintained the property records. The Chief Mechanical Officer would notify the top management, President or CEO, that a unit should be retired and gave the reason. The reason would be something like obselete, damaged in wreck or fire and beyond repair, surplus and available for sale or any other reason. The President or CEO would notify the Board of Directors (or Bankruptcy Trustee who notified the Bankruptcy Court) and approval would normally be forthcoming. During my time at the B & M, 1968-1986, there were a lot of engines that ran much longer than would normally have been expected including lots of switchers in the 1100 and 1200 series, the 4265 series covered wagons, 1957 GP-9s which used some remanufactured parts and the 1555 series GP-7s and some other classes. GP-9s 1710 and 1735 were destroyed off-line in a coal train wreck on the Penn Central in 1968 so it was a pretty sure thing that they weren't returning. FM Speed Merchant engines 1 and 2 were just sitting around the Boston Engine Terminal when an offer was made on then, so they went off to Leeds, Maine. There is a procedure for retirement of engines and other rolling stock and for private companies, it is usually decided at a high level. Today's engines cost several million $$ when new.

In contrast, when a private operator runs the business for a public authority, at least in Massachusetts, the usual procedure is to set aside engines (or other rolling stock) that won't run any longer and shove it out back out of the way. When the back yard is full or a shortage of engines develops, the public authority sends a team to evaluate the engines (or rolling stock) and decides if they'll be sent off-line for a rebuild or should be replaced. In either case, it is a lengthy process and nothing gets done until funding is secured. Long lines of stored, unserviceable equipment is one the the hallmarks of the local commuter rail transit agency.