334 Locomotives when and whom?

The F40s lasted only about 15-25 years (delivered 1976-87, phased out between 1995 and 2002).

R36 Combine Coach wrote:The F40s lasted only about 15-25 years (delivered 1976-87, phased out between 1995 and 2002).

The F40s lasted 15-25 years in Amtrak service, many local commuter rail agencies have continued to run them many more years since. A feat Amtrak could have done too.

question is how much do you want to spend on a rebuid ?? cause part of that locomotive is still old technology and subject to regulatory changes.
The F40 had a pathetic low HEP capacity and a fuel capacity to small for Amtrak service.

All these monday morning quarterback suggestions on "Amtrak should, Amtrak should" are made by people who never in their lifetime had to maintain or operate a locomotive.

DutchRailnut wrote:question is how much do you want to spend on a rebuid ?? cause part of that locomotive is still old technology and subject to regulatory changes.
The F40 had a pathetic low HEP capacity and a fuel capacity to small for Amtrak service.

All these monday morning quarterback suggestions on "Amtrak should, Amtrak should" are made by people who never in their lifetime had to maintain or operate a locomotive.

Dutch....I do run these locomotives...and freight side for 12 years...and 14mons with Amtrak.

It still does not put you, or me, in a position to judge if , it's more cost effective to rebuild or renew.
Yes a EMD is easy to rebuild, it is also the most poluting kind of engine produced.
Two stroke is ancient technology, and four stroke is harder to rebuild and maintain.
If the tAxpayers and their legislators are willing to keep Amtrak on a starvation budget, then only option is renewal, since the fleet may or may not be, beyond maintenance.
Again it's not our call, unless we have acces to maintenance records and numbers.

DutchRailnut wrote: The F40 had a pathetic low HEP capacity and a fuel capacity to small for Amtrak service.
All these monday morning quarterback suggestions on "Amtrak should, Amtrak should" are made by people who never in their lifetime had to maintain or operate a locomotive.

The F40 was built to Amtrak's specifications. If it proved to be inadequate, who's fault was it? I believe Amtrak should look at itself.

As for the low HEP and fuel capacity, why does VIA continue to use F40s? Doesn't VIA have the same requirements as Amtrak? To add, VIA is refurbishing all its F40 locomotives again, years after Amtrak abandoned theirs.

Sure, I'm not an expert, but wouldn't anyone consider VIA equally as expert as Amtrak at operating and maintaining locomotives? From my layman's point of view, VIA is more expert.

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 59&t=32319


I believe it is always good for a company to compare its business practices with its competitors, it's equals. I believe it wouldn't hurt Amtrak to visit and copy some of VIA operating practices, because VIA often does more with far less money.

I can't argue diesels with anyone. As a ex CSx engineer i preferred GE's over EMD, but now as a NEC Corridor engineer for amtrak all i can say Get me some motors SOON PLEASE. I don't mind the HHP's but i hate the AEM7DC motor's 1 bump and they lose power, HEP and whatever else. The HHP and to some extent the ACELA's were just to damn high tech for the older maintenace guys still working at the motor pits. many of them have went from GG1's to E60's to AEM7's to HHP's that alot of changed technology. I saw and heard complaints from mechanical at CSX of guys that went from geeps to AC's

DutchRailnut wrote:It still does not put you, or me, in a position to judge if , it's more cost effective to rebuild or renew.
Yes a EMD is easy to rebuild, it is also the most poluting kind of engine produced.
Two stroke is ancient technology, and four stroke is harder to rebuild and maintain.
If the tAxpayers and their legislators are willing to keep Amtrak on a starvation budget, then only option is renewal, since the fleet may or may not be, beyond maintenance.
Again it's not our call, unless we have acces to maintenance records and numbers.

First of all Dutch...get a grip. I do not pretend to know if rebuilding or purchasing new is the better option. This is a forum and as IM sure your well aware....we are free to formulate our opinons as we see fit....short of saying anything obviously offensive to people. Personally....I think the overhaul concept is better for Amtrak. If overhauling never came out on top as being cost effective...especially a first time overhaul.....their wouldnt be an overhauled loco out there. I could be wrong...but who cares...this is all talk anyways. Thats the fun of it.

Ok first comparing VIA to Amtrak is no contest, different railroad rules and different EPA rules.
HEP in Canada is split a left trainline bus and Right trainline bus vs a combined bus in USA.
In Canada two locomotives can provide HEP on Amtrak trains only one locomotive can.

Now each car takes between 80 and 100 hp from Main engine to provide the HEP. The F40's only had a 650 Kw HEP unit
todays standard is around 800Kw on a Genesis and 1 Mw on most electrics.
If the polution control is to be implemented on a F40's 645 engine the 3000 Hp would drop to about 2650 Hp, now deduct the HEP for whatever amount of cars pulled.
You will see a F40 is no longer sufficient. no matter what railbuffs claim.
a 4200 hp P42 can power about 16 cars of its 800Kw HEP and still have about 2600 hp left for traction, try that with a F40 and only 1000 Hp were left for traction if the HEP could handle it.

However NJT and MNCR have had recently rebuilt F40s and will continue use them for the foreseeable future.

R36 Combine Coach wrote:However NJT and MNCR have had recently rebuilt F40s and will continue use them for the foreseeable future.

NJT trains are shorter, lighter, and geez, they're loud, too. I can't wait until those old junkers are gone.

KV1guy wrote:I think Amtrak would do better to keep the P42's...and give them their midlife overhaul. Before that process, the BLET and Amtrak need to get together with a list of needed upgrades submitted by the engineers that run them. Overhauling with upgrades cant be anywhere near as expensive as buying more locos. Meanwhile....design work on the next highspeed diesel electric locos can begin...hopefully with more bidders than just GE. Some new locos can be purchased now to replace switchers that are needed. As for the ole Pepsi cans.....Im not sure if rebuilding those is worth it. They DO fill a niche....being medium horsepower to fill in on road assignments as well as yard jobs.....even though Im sure they suck at that.

As previvously mentioned....its down right pathetic that these units have detiorated to the point they have. Poor maintence is to blame....and some of you here that dont actually run these units pretend to know otherwise. The REAL issue is the lack of funds to keep these units maintained....as well as the fact that GE builds junk. GE's initial quality and pricing cant be beat.....perfect for the American Railroad market and the bean counter's that run them. If someone could take the technology of a GE and use the durable parts of a EMD....THAT would be one hell of a locomotive. Its Chevy vs BMW.

Agreed.

Now, can someone please tell me what/why GE engineer/designer came up with the brilliant plan to vent the toilet into the cab of the P42's when the cab A/C or heater is turned on? I'm not sure about the guys at GE, but I sure don't enjoy the smell of human waste in the cab of the motor for 8+ hours.

My point wasn't that F40s should be reintroduced into Amtrak service, that policy question was determined years ago. We're discussing replacing P40 and P42 locomotives before either locomotive model has more than 10 years of in use service. My point was locomotives can be refurbished and can be used for much longer than Amtrak suggests.

The EPA keeps changing its regulations that Amtrak must eventually meet. Locomotives are being refurbished this year to meet EPA Tier III. In less than 10 years (2017-2018?) locomotives being refurbished must meet EPA Tier IV. My point is Amtrak could refurbished its in use locomotives today to EPA Tier III before the deadline year and run the trains another few years before they needed refurbishing again, at which point it'll be time to scrap them, as meeting EPA Tier IV regulations requires major changes which will not be cheap to implement.

electricron wrote:My point wasn't that F40s should be reintroduced into Amtrak service, that policy question was determined years ago. We're discussing replacing P40 and P42 locomotives before either locomotive model has more than 10 years of in use service.

What about those units built in 1997 (such as AMTK #74 which I operated this morning)?

slchub wrote:What about those units built in 1997 (such as AMTK #74 which I operated this morning)

2010 -1997 = 13 years of service; according to the Amtrak link I posted earlier, there's still 17 years of useable life.

Useful Life is a generic and somewhat arbitrary age based definition of 30 years for locomotives and 40 years for passenger cars.

There's still more usable life left in that locomotive than it is old.........