MP36's... unwanted stepchildren?

Let me start by saying that I didn't really like the MP36's either at first.
The prevailing thought that I initially had about them was more or less,
"How could anything that big be so ugly?" Plus they were taking the place of those oh-so-lovable and reliable F40C's! Engineer discomfort reports from Bones, teething problems of various degrees (January wasn't kind to 5 or 6 of them), and my own personal eyewitness accounts of other railfans REFUSING to take a picture of them has made them one of the most maligned, criticized, and perhaps even hated locomotives I've ever seen.

But over the past year, I don't know, they've sort of grown on me. Yeah, that orange "lightning" stripe is still annoying, but I do like that deep, powerful, almost sinister rumble they've got when idling at CUS. They seem to glide so effortlessly when flying through the 'burbs down the middle track at 70mph on the point of those Naperville expresses. In fact, I took a picture of one of those, and the afternoon sun caught it at the perfect angle, in such a way that it seemed that it was about to disappear into an orange/yellowish haze; indeed, it was a futuristic effect. I tried picturing an F40 in that photo, but somehow, I don't think it would have worked as well, the dynamics wouldn't have been the same. I know they aren't very popular (especially on this board), and that's fine, to each his own. But like 'em or not, they're here to stay.

I wonder though... when these beasts are up for retirement or sale 35-40 years from now, will another generation of railfans be as saddened by their exit as most of us were when the F40C's bowed out? Call me crazy, but I think they'll be missed to some degree as well...

I wonder though... when these beasts are up for retirement or sale 35-40 years from now, will another generation of railfans be as saddened by their exit as most of us were when the F40C's bowed out?

I seriously doubt they'll last that long. They are failing mechanically now. Metra had better buy some of the old Amtrak F40PHs and keep them around for winter service.

to me i didnt think there will last more then 5 years from what all the crews tell me just look how there are now 2 years old and brakeing down like there new keep 611 and 614 so there have something to run

I wonder though... when these beasts are up for retirement or sale 35-40 years from now, will another generation of railfans be as saddened by their exit as most of us were when the F40C's bowed out?

Probably, it's a recurring theme that new power is disliked as it displaces older power. This was true when the E's were retired in favor of F40's, and it will be true when the MP36's are retired in favor of whatever comes next.

Probably, it's a recurring theme that new power is disliked as it displaces older power.

I agree with your statement. However, new power is hated when it is unreliable. Not to metion obnoxiously noisey. If the stupid things didn't make me late, I probably wouldn't care as much.

metrarider wrote: Probably, it's a recurring theme that new power is disliked as it displaces older power. This was true when the E's were retired in favor of F40's, and it will be true when the MP36's are retired in favor of whatever comes next.

That's more or less what I was trying to say. But here's something else; and maybe some of you can help out with this: When the F40's were being delivered to RTA during the late 70's/early 80's to replace the older E and F units on the CNW, RI, and BN, does anyone remember if there were reliability issues with some of these units within the first couple of years as well? I'm sure some of them were sidelined during the infamous blizzard of '79, but of course that was an extreme case.

I think the reliability of the Cs and PHs was brought up before and wasn't an issue when they were delivered. Amtrak had been previously using F40PHs out of Chicago and if there was an issue with them and the weather it would have been corrected by the time Metra's production run began. Right now, locomotive production is going through a developmental stage where computers are being integrated into them. Although I'm not a mechanic at Metra's shops, It sounds like many of the problems on the new locomotives are being caused by this. Eventually, putting a computer in a locomotive will become less of a big deal in the future, as the manufacturers work the kinks out, but right now it's still a developing technology.

i dont think snow getting into the inside of a mp has to do anything with the computer i think its call metra wanting something and the mps will not it at all were the new units with the faster pick up and less brake downs did anyone see them yet ? all yea that right it was the f40c that metra sold so now there have 27 bad unit and 2 good ones that being 611 and 614

Right now, locomotive production is going through a developmental stage where computers are being integrated into them. Although I'm not a mechanic at Metra's shops, It sounds like many of the problems on the new locomotives are being caused by this.

Au contraire, recent MP36 failures;

Posted 01/07/2005: 5 failures; 1 ground relay, 4 snow in main generator

Posted 03/02/2005: 422, 424 and 426 out of service with broken main shafts.

How easy it is to blame computers.

And yes, the subject of F40C reliability was brought up. Per a Metra engineer, it was not an issue. This just shows the difference between buying something from an established builder using proven technology versus a kit-bashed machine that was designed for California's climate.

F40CFan wrote: Posted 03/02/2005: 422, 424 and 426 out of service with broken main shafts.

Hmm, I'm not familiar enough with locomotive internals, but I'm guessing this is the main shaft driving the generator from the engine? Seems strange to have such a failure on what should obstensibly be a proven engine - the 645, or is this part of the loco that was specifically designed for the MP36?

"Hmm, I'm not familiar enough with locomotive internals, but I'm guessing this is the main shaft driving the generator from the engine?"

I'm not that familiar either, but I would have to go along with you.

The way I understand it, the prime mover is a pseudo-645, but reengineered by G.E. to "correct flaws" and increase horsepower. So who knows what we've got here.

Perhaps the engine is being pushed further than it has in the past, but the 645 variant in question has been used in other locomotive applications with good results.

It's too bad though that Metra didn't go with a modern plant and AC Traction, I mean really why choose a 645 these days?

a guy that i know that works for bnsf as a car cleaner told me two mp derail monday inside the yard i dont know if it was two on the same track or what but that kind of shows u what metra got and the weight is what derail them he told me so there were go

F40CFan wrote:Au contraire, recent MP36 failures;

Posted 01/07/2005: 5 failures; 1 ground relay, 4 snow in main generator

Posted 03/02/2005: 422, 424 and 426 out of service with broken main shafts.

How easy it is to blame computers.

I stand corrected. A lot of the earlier problems with the new units seemed to be with the on-board computers, so I assumed they must still be problematic. But I hope other commuter operations pay attention to Metra's new engines - this is what happens when you buy from a hole-in-the-wall operation with no prior reliability record.

Not claiming to be a mechanic either, but I'd guess the 645 was chosen for the sake of fleet commonality, otherwise Metra's shop personnel would have needed additional training. Also, they'd have to stock parts for two different kinds of equipment, so current problems aside, the MP36 purchase made sense at the time from an economic and practical viewpoint. And if it's true that this version of the 645 was "re-engineered by GE", well, that probably wasn't a good idea. From my understanding, EMD has way more experience with this engine than GE does, so why not ask EMD?