Pan Am GE DASH 8 Locomotives

[690]

And that's (tentatively) the plan. However, just because these Dash 8s are newer than everything else doesn't mean they won't be without issues (they're almost thirty years old themselves, and have never been rebuilt afaik), not to mention they're a whole different beast to maintain than a 40 series, something the mechanics have had years to get themselves acquainted with. Additionally, a least a handful of these incoming Dash 8s will inevitably end up in pool serivce, reducing the number of GP40s they can replace. And finally, yes, a Dash 8 can theoretically replace two GP40s. But what happens if something goes wrong? If you have a consist of four GP40s, and one dies, then you have three left to limp the train along. If you have two Dash 8s and one dies, then what? You end up with a train stuck somewhere, probably in the way of a passenger train.

[690]

As for GP40s out of service (with major issues), but not retired, actually not too many, most of them are in service.

[Mikejf]

[thebigham]

As for GP40s out of service (with major issues), but not retired, actually not too many, most of them are in service.

According to Bill Gingrich's latest PAR roster, they have 24 units OOS:

11 are GP40s. 3 are GP40-2LWs. 10 are SD40-2s.

87 total units on roster - not including the SW7 and the 2 OSC locos.

6 lease units are OOS - out of 16 lease units.

Then they have 14 units retired and off the roster. 10 are owned by LTEX.

[MEC407]

But what happens if something goes wrong? If you have a consist of four GP40s, and one dies, then you have three left to limp the train along. If you have two Dash 8s and one dies, then what? You end up with a train stuck somewhere, probably in the way of a passenger train.

Which is no different than if you have a consist of four GP40s and two of them die — something that actually does happen from time to time, as some Downeaster riders can tell you from personal experience.

The idea would be to have, for example, two Dash 8s and a 600 on a train that previously would've been hauled by three 600s and a GP40, or two 600s and two GP40s, etc.

Of course, all of this goes out the window with the usual PAR issues of locos running out of fuel, running out of water, running low on lube oil, dead batteries, burned out headlights with no foreign power to steal good bulbs from, etc. Nothing, not even brand new locos given to them for free, can change that, except for a change in philosophy regarding how the railroad is operated.

[jaymac]

December 25 is perhaps the worst day to be posting anything that might seem less than charitable, but it is Guilford -- technically Springfield Terminal, whatever and however many rebrandings it may have had and might continue to have -- that is under discussion. The NS 3400s and then the LTEXs and then the GMTX 3400s and now the to-be-GEs have severally and jointly been put forth as cures for the power-reliability issues. What the "new" power always does is buy time until -- as just mentioned by MEC407 -- the effects of the modus operandi Guilfordi kick in. Whatever improvements might be in place under Fink 2.0, until and unless a new ethos is established and enforced by the primi inter pares -- the more-than-metaphorically senior partners -- there will continue to be a series of delaying actions aimed at maintaining the appearance of viability. "Where's Waldo?" might be a funny-paper staple, but "Where's Watco?" is a question for which the only answer now seems "Not yet at PAR."
I wonder how long the senior-partner set will maintain the interest and energy in maintaining the appearance of viability.

Also, I had thought that Red Green woulda kept his association with PAR under wraps of duct tape.

[690]

As for GP40s out of service (with major issues), but not retired, actually not too many, most of them are in service.

According to Bill Gingrich's latest PAR roster, they have 24 units OOS:

11 are GP40s. 3 are GP40-2LWs. 10 are SD40-2s.

87 total units on roster - not including the SW7 and the 2 OSC locos.

6 lease units are OOS - out of 16 lease units.

Then they have 14 units retired and off the roster. 10 are owned by LTEX.

Which, no offense to Bill, isn't entirely accurate. Yes, maybe they are OOS at the time of his publishing, but they aren't out for the entire month. And also, he's listed engines as being out of service when in reality they're in the shop for a day to get something simple like new brake shoes. It's a good resource, but his OOS list is often quite misleading.

But what happens if something goes wrong? If you have a consist of four GP40s, and one dies, then you have three left to limp the train along. If you have two Dash 8s and one dies, then what? You end up with a train stuck somewhere, probably in the way of a passenger train.

Which is no different than if you have a consist of four GP40s and two of them die — something that actually does happen from time to time, as some Downeaster riders can tell you from personal experience.

The idea would be to have, for example, two Dash 8s and a 600 on a train that previously would've been hauled by three 600s and a GP40, or two 600s and two GP40s, etc.

Of course, all of this goes out the window with the usual PAR issues of locos running out of fuel, running out of water, running low on lube oil, dead batteries, burned out headlights with no foreign power to steal good bulbs from, etc. Nothing, not even brand new locos given to them for free, can change that, except for a change in philosophy regarding how the railroad is operated.

Two GP40s still have higher tractive effort than a single Dash 8. At any rate, just because they're getting new engines doesn't mean they can just dump a bunch of their old ones when they're already incredibly power short. It will free up more of the GP40s to be used for locals and switchers (so less switcher crews doing nothing while waiting for power to become available), as well as the Rumford Branch (where six axles are prohibited), and Waterville - Keag (where they could run six axles but don't), but they can't just get rid of a bunch of them. They might be able to get rid of a handful of the worst (likely the B&M ones since they've been on the property for a decade longer than the MEC ones, despite being physically newer), but that would be about it.

[MEC407]

Two GP40s still have higher tractive effort than a single Dash 8.

GP40 CTE: 54,700 lbs

Dash 8-40C CTE: 108,600 lbs

Two GP40s CTE: 109,400 lbs

Difference: 800 lbs (less than 1% difference)

CSX Dash 8-40Cs may in fact have even higher tractive effort that the number listed above because that number is for Union Pacific's units, and rumor has it that CSX's are substantially heavier.

[newpylong]

Equally important, 1 -8 less fuel than 2 gp40s.

[690]

A C40-8 is only 92k continuous, and CSX Dash 8s weighed the same as other Dash 8s, it wasn't until the AC4400s that they started adding more weight. But this is a moot argument, and I even agreed with you on Pan Am wanting to replace two GP40s with a Dash 8. I'm disagreeing with you on that they can't afford to sideline a bunch of GP40s just because they're getting engines that have better overall performance when they're so short of power.

[gokeefe]

I think in general it's interesting that they are making this move at a time when their paper traffic is way down. They seem determined to fight for every last car load they can get.

[KSmitty]

I think in general it's interesting that they are making this move at a time when their paper traffic is way down. They seem determined to fight for every last car load they can get.

I'm not really sure how this acquisition has anything to do with fighting for traffic. Care to elaborate?

Also, paper traffic is way down as is coal, but Intermodal is up HUGE and LP is up too. More importantly they are perpetually power short. They need the power yesterday...

[CPF363]

I think this has everything to do with horsepower hours. Pan Am stays is perpetually in arrears. Sending a 3000 horsepower unit in run through service with CSX, or NS just doesn't add up fast enough. Same with sending a 3000 hp unit out to pay off hours. These larger engines can multiply the horsepower hours much faster.

Guilford needs to send those units to CSX and NS while they are running good to run as many horsepower off as they physically can in the shortest amount of time. If they are receiving 24 engines, keep five and send the rest along to NS and CSX. Pay both roads to maintain them to ensure sustainability. Coupled with these engines are track repairs. Once this winter is over, get some relay rail and get it welded into CWR for the curves on the Stony Brook, WN&P and the Lowell Branch so that trains can get over the road. This probably the main reason why the horsepower hours owed to both NS and CSX are where they are today. More will be needed for the MEC in addition to the rail the State of Maine is providing for the Waterville to NMJ portion.

[guilfordrailfan]

December 25 is perhaps the worst day to be posting anything that might seem less than charitable, but it is Guilford -- technically Springfield Terminal, whatever and however many rebrandings it may have had and might continue to have -- that is under discussion. The NS 3400s and then the LTEXs and then the GMTX 3400s and now the to-be-GEs have severally and jointly been put forth as cures for the power-reliability issues. What the "new" power always does is buy time until -- as just mentioned by MEC407 -- the effects of the modus operandi Guilfordi kick in. Whatever improvements might be in place under Fink 2.0, until and unless a new ethos is established and enforced by the primi inter pares -- the more-than-metaphorically senior partners -- there will continue to be a series of delaying actions aimed at maintaining the appearance of viability. "Where's Waldo?" might be a funny-paper staple, but "Where's Watco?" is a question for which the only answer now seems "Not yet at PAR."
I wonder how long the senior-partner set will maintain the interest and energy in maintaining the appearance of viability.

Also, I had thought that Red Green woulda kept his association with PAR under wraps of duct tape.

Your assessment of past "cures for the power-reliability issues" is well grounded in historical evidence. That said, the scope of the currently unfolding "cure" appears to be unprecedented in either quantity or quality of the locomotives involved, at least for the past two decades. That gives the proverbial optimist in me hope that it just might be different this time. Of course, time will tell whether the infamous "modus operandi Guilfordi" will quash that hope or not. And given that the GE products upon which this "cure" depends will require a maintenance regimen with which PAR personnel are currently unfamiliar, the time to tell should be relatively short.

[gokeefe]

I had not heard anything about new rail as part of the TIGER grant.