Railroad Forums 

  • GP40-2LW's

  • Guilford Rail System changed its name to Pan Am Railways in 2006. Discussion relating to the current operations of the Boston & Maine, the Maine Central, and the Springfield Terminal railroads (as well as the Delaware & Hudson while it was under Guilford control until 1988). Official site can be found here: PANAMRAILWAYS.COM.
Guilford Rail System changed its name to Pan Am Railways in 2006. Discussion relating to the current operations of the Boston & Maine, the Maine Central, and the Springfield Terminal railroads (as well as the Delaware & Hudson while it was under Guilford control until 1988). Official site can be found here: PANAMRAILWAYS.COM.

Moderator: MEC407

 #146369  by Guilford512
 
I noticed one of them has been in the dead line in Waterville for awhile. I also heard some story's that GTI is gonna be getting rid of them. One reason I heard, was that they are Non-dynamic, and another that they arn't really good at switching.

Anyone have any ideas?

 #146489  by MEC407
 
The dynamic brakes on Guilford's DB-equipped locomotives are disabled. Guilford (and B&M before that) has been anti-dynamic brake for a long time. The fact that the GP40-2Ws don't have dynamic brakes shouldn't make any difference.

MEC 513 has been dead at Waterville ever since the GP40-2Ws were delivered. It has never operated in revenue service.

I can't imagine that Guilford would be getting rid of their newest and most reliable locomotives, considering how power-short they are. I think you should question the reliability of the source who gave you that information.

 #146519  by Guilford512
 
I actually heard this from a guy I know that works for New England Central.

but ohwell It does not bother me, Whatever I see in Rumford is good enough for me. But seeing a single GP40-2LW doing switching, Seems kina difficult.

 #146534  by MEC407
 
If anything, I could see Guilford buying more of those ex-CN GP40-2Ws if more become available (and if Guilford sees fit to actually invest a few bucks in the railroad, which is always a big "if").

As far as switching ability is concerned, I don't think they're any worse than the high-nose GP40s and GP35s, at least in terms of visibility.

 #146545  by metman499
 
While the visibily may be better, I have heard that those engines are very tired mechanically and that CN ran them very hard before selling them. They might soon be suffering some big failures based on that, or become cost-prohibitive to maintain.

 #146551  by Guilford512
 
hmm, well thank you for the Info, Yea I figured the High Hood GP7's 9' 35's and 40's are a bit harder the the widecabs.

 #146555  by JAJ
 
MEC407 wrote:I can't imagine that Guilford would be getting rid of their newest and most reliable locomotives, considering how power-short they are. I think you should question the reliability of the source who gave you that information.
;-) RT is most certainly right, the 500s are GTI's most reliable locomotives.

As for these units reportedly being "tired" from their previous owners, I think the same can and has been said about most every other unit on the GTI roster...the 35's, the 40's, the 26's, the 45's, etc. Nothing new there...

JAJ

 #146561  by MEC407
 
metman499 wrote:While the visibily may be better, I have heard that those engines are very tired mechanically and that CN ran them very hard before selling them. They might soon be suffering some big failures based on that, or become cost-prohibitive to maintain.
That is true of all of Guilford's locomotives. Every single one of them was worn out and beaten to death by the time Guilford got 'em. The ex-CN units are the newest ones on the roster!

 #146585  by Noel Weaver
 
MEC407 wrote:
metman499 wrote:While the visibily may be better, I have heard that those engines are very tired mechanically and that CN ran them very hard before selling them. They might soon be suffering some big failures based on that, or become cost-prohibitive to maintain.
That is true of all of Guilford's locomotives. Every single one of them was worn out and beaten to death by the time Guilford got 'em. The ex-CN units are the newest ones on the roster!
This is not necessarily so, the GP-40's that came from Conrail were
basically still good engines. Conrail simply wanted newer power but
the GP-40's that came from Penn Central were good engines and quite
reliable too. I ran a number of them between Selkirk and Buffalo in the
late 1980's before they were stored and eventually sold.
Based on my experiences with these units from when they were fairly new
to nearly the end of them, they were good engines and Guilford got a very
decent engine for a reasonable cost.
I also had them once or twice as trailing units after they had been sold to
Guilford as a payback unit and while they were trailing units, again they
ran well.
The big railroads have much fairly new power.
Smaller size railroads such as Guilford with less money to spend have
elected to go with used locomotives and I don't think they have done too
badly in that regard at least lately.
Noel Weaver

 #146608  by MEC407
 
Noel Weaver wrote:Based on my experiences with these units from when they were fairly new to nearly the end of them, they were good engines and Guilford got a very decent engine for a reasonable cost. I also had them once or twice as trailing units after they had been sold to Guilford as a payback unit and while they were trailing units, again they ran well.
That does mirror what I've heard from Guilford folks who have run them. I've also heard that their ex-NS high-nose GP40s are good runners, and that the NS crews don't mind having them "back" when they occasionally meander down to NS country to pay back HP hours. :-)

Noel, you probably ran some of CR's late-model U23Bs while you were working there. Can you share your thoughts on those? I'm thinking about the newest ones, some of which were eventually sold to Providence & Worcester. They were built toward the end of domestic Universal Series production (1977-ish) and seemed to perform admirably while on P&W.

Thanks,
-R.T.

 #146661  by Guilford512
 
Well, this is actually a very interesting subject, Anywho, I don't mind seeing the 2LW's on the Rumford Branch, but I have noticed they are starting to have a GP35 in the middle of the engine consist.

is there by chance the GP7's and 9's will be scrapped or stored at the end of the year? and is 252 being scrapped in waterville?

Thanks.

 #146963  by Noel Weaver
 
MEC407 wrote:
Noel Weaver wrote:Based on my experiences with these units from when they were fairly new to nearly the end of them, they were good engines and Guilford got a very decent engine for a reasonable cost. I also had them once or twice as trailing units after they had been sold to Guilford as a payback unit and while they were trailing units, again they ran well.
That does mirror what I've heard from Guilford folks who have run them. I've also heard that their ex-NS high-nose GP40s are good runners, and that the NS crews don't mind having them "back" when they occasionally meander down to NS country to pay back HP hours. :-)

Noel, you probably ran some of CR's late-model U23Bs while you were working there. Can you share your thoughts on those? I'm thinking about the newest ones, some of which were eventually sold to Providence & Worcester. They were built toward the end of domestic Universal Series production (1977-ish) and seemed to perform admirably while on P&W.

Thanks,
-R.T.
I did not run them very much as I was in through freight service and for
the most part, the U-23b's were local freight engines although they some-
times were used. I ran the earlier ones a fair amount on the River
Division and although the cab controls were better than the earlier U boats, they still had a number of the disadvantages of the earlier ones.
After my Metro-North stint from 1983 to 1987, I returned to Conrail in
Selkirk and what few U-23b's that were still around were mostly used on
yard and local freights and many of them had already been disposed of or
were stored so I did not work on them during that period either.
All of the GE's right up to the end of the dash 7's were far inferior to the
EMD's of the same general arrangement. The dash 8's were an
improvement but I always thought EMD built a better locomotive.
Even look at what is still around today, there are still a fair number of EMD
GP-7's and GP-9's around but very few "U" series GE's.
I could relate to a number of unpleasant experiences that I had with the
earlier GE's.
Noel Weaver

 #147706  by mick
 
Guilford
Last edited by mick on Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

 #147856  by Guilford512
 
Why did MMA not keep the leased SD45T-2's. Those seemed really good.
And as for the Dynamic Brakes Diabled.. That must of been done during manufactoring when the GP40-2LW's W/DB and W/O DB's where produced.

 #148208  by mick
 
Not quite....
Last edited by mick on Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:21 am, edited 1 time in total.