Helm lease engine questions

Just curious in general how things are working out with the Helm engines PAR is leasing. How are they running? How often are they used? How far East have they gone? and have they greatly reduced PAR's power shortage problem? Thanks in advance!

Two were on the head end of an intermodal consist heading east of Hill Yard in Ayer this morning around eleven. Anyone know what train this was?

Dave

davidp wrote:Two were on the head end of an intermodal consist heading east of Hill Yard in Ayer this morning around eleven. Anyone know what train this was?

Dave

What you saw was AYMO being assembled. The train is put together by a yard crew doubling tracks over and using the east leg of the wye for headroom. The train usually departs by 3pm. There are no intermodal trains that run east of Ayer.

roberttosh wrote:Just curious in general how things are working out with the Helm engines PAR is leasing. How are they running? How often are they used? How far East have they gone? and have they greatly reduced PAR's power shortage problem? Thanks in advance!

The lease units will rareley if ever go past Ayer except for maybe Nashua on an EDNA. They do not run on any Maine bound trains past Ayer. Something to do with the lease terms.

As for how they are running. For the most part ok. Small issues here and there so i hear. Mainly minor stuff. Toilets, speedo's, minor water leaks. But that is about it. The dynamic brakes do not work well on PAR due to the fact that so much of the track is 10MPH. The older Dynamic brake systems on those SD40's do not work well at low speeds. I have heard that they are actually being disconnected in many of the units since not many PAR Hoggers know how to use them anyhow.

As for reducing the power shortage? They most certainly are. Virtually all the AYMO/MOAY/EDMO/MOED and SEED trains are using them on a regualr basis. Almost exclusivley lease power which frees up ALOT of PAR units. AYMO/MOAY used to use 3 units on each train. When you take into account both trains are running seperatley, that was using up 6 PAR loco's. Often more when you had trains running late. Now they run those trains with 2 lease units. So right there your freeing up 6 units on those trains alone. On average, the Helm units are working as a 1.5-2 unit replacement. So trains that used to have 3-4 PAR units are now using 2 Lease units. Even though only 15 Helm units are on the property, i would guesstimate those 15 units have freed up close to 25-30 PAR units.

All PAR "hoggers" know how to use dynamic brakes. If they don't, they were'nt paying much attention in class or on their qualifying rides, or on their annual re-certification rides. (I'm talking about guys who work west of Rigby, not someone who works BAMA with GP9's , yes, they might not be familiar with dynamics, but they certainly know what they are.)

mick wrote:All PAR "hoggers" know how to use dynamic brakes. If they don't, they were'nt paying much attention in class or on their qualifying rides, or on their annual re-certification rides. (I'm talking about guys who work west of Rigby, not someone who works BAMA with GP9's , yes, they might not be familiar with dynamics, but they certainly know what they are.)

Actually, no. Knowing how to operate the dynamic brake controls and actually knowing how to use dynamic brakes are too very different things. Why do you think NS was out in Mohawk and Deerfield this past year with the loco simulator giving Dynamic Brake instruction classes?

As for Paying attention in Guilfords engineer "Class", you are aware that the class consists of three days of basic locomotive knowledge (with EXTREMELY outdated materials) and AIR BRAKES. After the 3 days of class, it's all "on the job" training. The class is a joke. I know a bunch of guys who went through it in the past 6 or 7 years. Hell, right now the ENTIRE railroad only has 2 road foreman and one is leaving next month. There is no time to do a real class. And recertification is nothing more then a short ride. You think a road foreman waits around for an engineer he has to ride with to have dynamic brakes? You know how rare that is? Only a handful of trains in a given week have them and ALL of them are west of Lowell.

As for on thier "qualifying" rides, Only ONE area west of Rigby is considered "Must Ride" territory. And that is the hill from Gardner to Fitchburg. A road foreman needs to ride with you on this hill with a mixed freight and a coal train before you are allowed to take either down the hill. And news flash, you are not allowed to use Dynamic brakes on your qualifying ride!. So the idea that knowing how to use Dynamic brakes is part of Guilfords requirements is completley false. Prior to getting lease power, the ONLY trains you would ever have dynamic brakes on were coal trains.

I know you were never an engineer so maybe you don't fully understand how the system is used. But there is a proper way to use it and not using it properly, especially on poor track conditions can be dangerous. Guilford disabled it on all thier power to save money on maintaining it and to eliminate the risk of improper use. Ask any old head on PAR now and they will verify that.

Guilfords training programs for both conductors and engineers are a total joke. They simply do not have the manpower to have enough supervision to make any of the programs effective. I hear from engineers over there all the time how conductors who have been there for almost 3 years still do not know everything they should. And several of the new engineers have had issued of their own. Most of the guys i know there said there NORAC recertifications are years overdue.

Once you spend any time on a real railroad you will understand the differences.

I don't know why you are trying to be such a know it all, but all of the engineers I have ever worked with (and that's pretty much every engineer west of Portland) know how to use dynamic braking. And not just from NS power on coal trains. From Conrail power back in the SENE/NESE days on which ST engineers were instructed on how to use dynamics, CP power, CSX power, P&W power, and back when a lot of Guilford units had working dynamic brakes back in the 80's before they were deactivated. Or they came from "real" railroads that used them regularly. As far as the training programs being a "joke", we had a guy from NS who said all they ever did over there was sleep between terminals, and that's what he did here (he now works for MBCR). Another guy from BNSF couldn't run a train to save his life. Anyone who tells you their NORAC rules is years overdue is lying, because the Rules Examiner will take you out of service if you haven't done them in the past year. Whatever. You are obviously some type of genius that knows more than I do.

mick wrote:I don't know why you are trying to be such a know it all, but all of the engineers I have ever worked with (and that's pretty much every engineer west of Portland) know how to use dynamic braking. And not just from NS power on coal trains. From Conrail power back in the SENE/NESE days on which ST engineers were instructed on how to use dynamics, CP power, CSX power, P&W power, and back when a lot of Guilford units had working dynamic brakes back in the 80's before they were deactivated. Or they came from "real" railroads that used them regularly. .

Once again, just because you know how to transition from power to Dynamic brake does not mean you know how to PROPERLY use Dynamic brakes. Your not an engineer so you should not be arguing that point. The fact of the matter is Guilford does NOT have ANY formal training for how to use Dynamic brakes and many of the engineers who have come over from the ranks of conductors recently had no class 1 expierience.

mick wrote:As far as the training programs being a "joke", we had a guy from NS who said all they ever did over there was sleep between terminals, and that's what he did here (he now works for MBCR). Another guy from BNSF couldn't run a train to save his life.

I know of both people you are reffering to. And the person you are talking about sleeping between terminals does not mean NS has a bad training program. It means the person in question is simply lazy and unmotivated. Great training programs or not, if you choose not to apply yourself, it will not matter. Over here at CSX, we have an excellent 5 week conductor program and yet i still get guys who sleep or are brain dead. Oh well, not the programs fault.

mick wrote:Anyone who tells you their NORAC rules is years overdue is lying, because the Rules Examiner will take you out of service if you haven't done them in the past year. Whatever. You are obviously some type of genius that knows more than I do.

Not that i would name names on this site, but i know of close to a dozen guys over there who laugh about the fact they keep asking about when they are going to get re-tested and they are told, "We will call you". Many are coming up on two years.

In any event, this is not the subject of this thread. The issue was dynamic brakes on lease units and the fact Guilford freely admits they are diasabled because they do not want engineers using them since no proper training program is in place. Leaving them enabled when the lease power is often mixed with non dynamic brake loco's could lead to problems.

You really should not be arguing about anything involving a locomotive engineers skills unless you are one. Not trying to be argumentative, just trying prevent bad info from being spread.

The fact is, you said most ST engineers don't know how to use dynamic brakes, you didn't say they were not properly trained on how to use dynamic brakes. Then you said the only trains they ran that had dynamics were coal trains, which is not true. Then, you try to tell me that I am not an engineer, so I should not say anything.
Is this an engineers-only forum? Are you the only one qualified to comment on these topics? I sat and watched while an ST road foreman qualified an engineer on Conrail power between Worcester and Lawrence. He instructed the guy on how to use dynamic brakes. Was that part of the formal training program? I don't know. I do know they were running a lot of trains between Worcester and Lawrence with Conrail power. Which had dynamic brakes. I have never seen a Bulletin telling engineers not to use the dynamics on foreign power. So the Helm lease units are not the only engines other than coal trains that ST engineers have had dynamic brakes.
I know by your lack of knowldge of Conrail days, and when CP and PLM power was used regularly on Guilford,that you do not have as much experience on a RR as I do. Heck, they had units with dynamic brakes back in the 60's and 70's with run-through EL and D&H SD-45's on PB-99 and NE-87 (yes, THAT was before my time) So maybe you are the one who should stop spreading bad info.

I've heard some of the lease units werent compatible with the few head end boxes Pan Am has. They've been rewiring acouple at Deerfield so they will work with the head end boxes. I beleive 6450 is one. Anyone else heard anything on this? Or am I way off in left field? Billy.

I just thought I'd add a few comments. The lease units are providing Pan Am some relief in their power shortage. They are pleased enough that they are considering leasing a few more. While I have yet to get confirmation that there are issues regarding compatibility with Head End boxes, etc...I do know they are purchasing both EOT's and head end boxes.

I'd also like to make a few remarks regarding the dynamic brake "discussion". First of all, I would like to thank every engineer who taught me about train handling while I was a conductor. Learning how to bring SENE over to Worcester using nothing but air, nothing but dynamic, or the most popular "combination of the two", without leaving pieces of it scattered on the mountain was a lesson worth learning. Did I have an engineer's license while learning what "cycle braking" and "pi**ing the air away" meant? No. Did I get to try these methods while my exhausted engineer needed a break and watched my every move? Not saying.

Thankfully Conrail had a great engineer program when I went. And after 10 years of running freight, I'd like to thank every old school conductor who taught this "kid" as much about running as my OJT engineers. Their knowledge of physical characteristics and train handling techniques were invaluable. Just because they never sat in a class, or didn't have a license, didn't mean they couldn't run one heck of a train. Ask anyone who ran POME or SENF in the dead of night after being out on their rest for 3 days.

I was lucky enough to work with several former B&M engineers. The fact that they were schooled using nothing but air, and had to answer to the guys in the caboose, made them train handling masters. The fundamental lessons they taught me could easily be applied to dynamic braking. So I guess I don't understand the arguments being presented. And to insinuate that Pan Am engineers (or conductors) don't know about, or how to use dynamic braking, primarily because Pan Am doesn't have a lot of db equipped units, seems a little unfair.

While I would be happy to have this matter explained to me, I would rather see this thread turned towards its original direction.

Thank you for your time and indulgence.

atholrail wrote:I've heard some of the lease units werent compatible with the few head end boxes Pan Am has. They've been rewiring acouple at Deerfield so they will work with the head end boxes. I beleive 6450 is one. Anyone else heard anything on this? Or am I way off in left field? Billy.

The lease units use the almost industry standard single connector (power and data) cable setup for the HTD's. It's simply one cable connector (14 or 16 pin if i recall) plus the antenna cable. This works with the most common HTD made, the Pulse/Wabtec Trainlink system. Guilford however does NOT use this system. They use a DSL/US&S style HTD that uses a two cable (One 5 pin and one 6 pin) plus an antenna setup. This type is commonly refered to as a CN system. They are NOT interchangable without a special cable that cost about $300.00. Maybe Deerfield is converting some, i don't know.

I was told that a few of the lease units had Trainlink boxes. The rest simply go without. The lease power generally only goes east of Deerfield with intermodal traffic which is virtually always under 4,000 tons so HTD's are not really an issue. And west of deerfield, none of the territory requires telemetry.

mick wrote:The fact is, you said most ST engineers don't know how to use dynamic brakes, you didn't say they were not properly trained on how to use dynamic brakes..

No, go re-read what i wrote, "Knowing how to operate the dynamic brake controls and actually knowing how to use dynamic brakes are too very different things."

That most certainly implies they were never trained. That is what we are talking about here. The fact that Guilford does NOT have any training for how to use Dynamic brakes. This is FACT.

mick wrote:Then you said the only trains they ran that had dynamics were coal trains, which is not true.

I never said that either. I am well aware that the AYSE/SEAY uses power with Dynamic brakes. I should know, i deliver those trains to Worcester all the time to Guilford. But that power NEVER goes west of Ayer and when it goes East, it ONLY goes as far as Lowell. Most of which is more 10mph territory with litle to no grades. And the entire Worcester Main line is 10 (save for two miles of 30). The lease power in question goes down the hill from Garder and places like Shelburne. That is what we are talking about. So the CSX power is not an issue in this discusssion. P&W coal trains out of Worcester and Gardner have it too, again, not an issue in this discussion.

mick wrote:Then, you try to tell me that I am not an engineer, so I should not say anything.
Is this an engineers-only forum?

No, but questions regarding how to operate locomotives are best left answered by the people who are licensed to do so and do so on a regular basis. Not conductors who spend time watching engineers. If i had never been a conductor myself, i certainly would not chime in on Conductors duties.

mick wrote:I sat and watched while an ST road foreman qualified an engineer on Conrail power between Worcester and Lawrence. He instructed the guy on how to use dynamic brakes. Was that part of the formal training program? I don't know. I do know they were running a lot of trains between Worcester and Lawrence with Conrail power. Which had dynamic brakes. I have never seen a Bulletin telling engineers not to use the dynamics on foreign power. So the Helm lease units are not the only engines other than coal trains that ST engineers have had dynamic brakes..

That was a LONG time ago. CSX power does NOT go past Lowell UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. It's physically impossible actually as CSX shuts the power down if it does. I can tell you it had happened only about 3 times in the last 2 years. I don't doubt what you saw, but that was nothing recent. And that is the issue. PAR does NOT have ANY formal training on the use of Dynamic brakes and HAS NOT for several years. They currently have only two road foreman, both are up in Waterville. They have ZERO west of there. And i know several newwer engineers who became engineers in the past 3 years and never recieved ANY formal training.

mick wrote:I know by your lack of knowldge of Conrail days, and when CP and PLM power was used regularly on Guilford,that you do not have as much experience on a RR as I do. Heck, they had units with dynamic brakes back in the 60's and 70's with run-through EL and D&H SD-45's on PB-99 and NE-87 (yes, THAT was before my time) So maybe you are the one who should stop spreading bad info.

What does my "lack of knowledge of Conrail days" even mean? I have been working in the railroad field for coming up on 17 years. I have been a class 1 locomotive engineer for over a decade. And i am well aware of the time frame of when Dynamic brakes were invented and used. I am not trying to debate the history of dynamic brake use on Guilford either. I don't know it, nor do i care. The past history is not what this thread is about.

Bottom line, the duscussion at hand is simply why the dynamic brakes are being disabled on the new lease power on Guilford. THATS IT. If me info is wrong, then well over a dozen Guilford employees, both management and Union are banding together to spread misinformation. Whatever.

I am not going to engage this ridiculous argument any longer. Your not even an engineer so just that fact your trying to argue about the training of something you yourself are not trained in on a railroad you don't work for is just pointless.

You say most PAR hoggers do not know how to use Dynamic Brakes-I say they do.
You say there is no formal training program for it-I agree, but at one point there was, whether casual or formal.

You said, "I have heard they are actually being disconnected in many of the units because not many PAR hoggers know how to use them anyhow" You said that,that is a FACT. Now you are denying it. Then you said "Prior to getting lease power the only trains you would ever have dynamic brakes on were coal trains" Now you are saying you did not say that, or you say "that was a long time ago". Are you for real? I don't want to continue this argument, either.
Do you always have to be right about everything, even though you have clearly been proven wrong? I don't know how you can somehow think you are superior to everyone else on this forum, simply because you work for CSX. Somehow you are a "real" railroader, and anyone who works for GTI/PAR is not. Think about this. While you are sitting there gliding along in your computerized locomotive, marvelling in all the gadgetry and modern tecnology,you are no more of a railroader than a subway car driver, anyone can run one of those computerized gizmos. We out on PAR are doing it the old fashioned way,by the seat of our pants and a regulating valve, and some duct tape, where you really have to know your stuff to run a train, or switch cars. I see a lot of women on CSX, but not PAR. Why is that? BECAUSE WORKING FOR CSX IS EASIER!

Arguing with you about something on a railroad YOU don't work for is pointless, I don't care who you know.
(well over a dozen employees banding together to spread misinformation is not uncommon here, probably not on CSX either, or any railroad, for that matter) Ask ten different people a question, you will get ten different answers.

By the way, the Dynamics on the Lease units are not being disabled by PAR,some of them just showed up that way.

OK guys, you're gonna have to agree to disagree. I'm putting the brakes on this discussion -- yes, pun intended.

The original question seems to have been answered anyway.